INJURED BY HAYFORK

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22064, 21 September 1933, Page 3

INJURED BY HAYFORK

YOUTH’S DEATH FOLLOWS FARMER TO PAY DAMAGES. The question whether a farmer was liable to pay compensation for injuries received by a servant lent to him by a neighbouring farmer was considered by the Arbitration Court in Auckland on Friday. Mr Justice Fraser presided, and associated with Messrs W. Cecil Prime and A. L. Monteith, employers’ and employees’ assessors respectively. The case arose out of fatal injuries suffered by a farm labourer, Alexander Campbell Williamson, aged 19, at Marotnaktl,- North Auckland, last February. The plaintiffs were the deceased’s parents, Alexander Campbell Williamson and Annie Daisy Williamson, of Kohimarama, and the defendants, Donald Archibald Ross and John Atkins, both farmers of Maromaku.

It was set out in the statement of claim that from November 19, 1032, to February 16, 1933, the deceased was employed on the farm of the defendant Ross. On the latter date, in accordance with the established farming custom in the district, Rosa sent the deceased to Atkins, a neighbouring farmer, to assist in haymaking. While on Atkins's farm, the deceased descended from a haystack by a ladder, and in so doing suffered injuries through being pierced by a hayfork. He died on March 16.

The plaintiffs were in doubt which of the defendants was liable to pay compensation or whether both were liable, so action had been taken against both. The sum of £2OO was claimed as general compensation, together with £6O for medical and funeral expenses, costs and such other relief as the court might think fit. Liability was denied by the defendant Ross on the ground that at the time of the accident the deceased was working for and allegedly under the control of Atkins, and also that the accident did not arise out of the deceased’s employment by Roes. The defendant Atkins also denied responsibility, alleging that the deceased came on to his farm of his own free will and without being invited, It was further alleged that after walking on to the property the deceased offered to assist Atkins in the making of hay and was permitted to do so. There was no contract by which Atkins employed the deceased. In evidence, Rosa said he and Atkins some years ago agreed verbally to assist each other in farm work at busy periods, and it was in accordance with this arrangement that witness sent the deceased to help Atkins with his haymaking if required. The deceased’s wages were paid by witness. Cross-examined, witness said that on the day of the accident he regarded the deceased ns his employee. His Honor said that admittedly a contract had existed between Ross and the deceased, but there was “not a tittle of evidence ” of a contract between Atkins and the deceased. The claim against Atkins was dismissed, but the plaintiffs succeeded in their action against Ross. They were awarded £52 general compensation, £44 for medical and funeral expenses, and £lO 16s costs. Ross was ordered to pay the costs of Atkins.