COMPENSATION AWARDED

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22211, 14 March 1934, Page 5

COMPENSATION AWARDED

WIDOW v. ROAD TRUST DEATH OF RELIEF WORKER. (Peb United Pbess Association.) CHRISTCHURCH, March 13. An unusual type of compensation claim was heard before the Arbitration Court to-day. The Port Hills-Summit Road Public Trust is the defendant and A. Bank, widow of George Johan Christopher Bank, is the plaintiff. Bank died on April 18 of last year, the coroner’s verdict, being that death was the result of compression of the brain due to haemorrhage from a rupture of a vein through jerking the deceased’s head backwards when falling over an embankment after being assisted by Clarence George Gibson. The latter came before the session of the Supreme Court in May, when he was found guilty of an assault under provocation and not guilty on a charge of manslaughter. The plaintiff has seven children, and so far has been paid no compensation. The defence denied that death was due to an accident arising out of the man's employment.

Counsel for the plaintiff said the case was unusual, and involved an interesting law point. Bank was a relief worker employed on work at Summit road,-work which was nominally controlled by the trust, which was practically Mr H. G. Ell. An important point of the case would be to show that the blow or blows were short jabs to the body, which were not very violent owing to the closeness of the men. and Bank, if he had been standing on solid ground, would not have been seriously incommoded. His Honor: A short arm jab can be quite effective. You can take my word for it. Counsel continued that .Bank was not knocked off his feet by jabs, but took steps back, slipped on a loose stone, and went over the bank. It was contended that an altercation arose out of tim employment of the men on the job. There was no control, and there was a shortage of tools. It was submitted that the whole cause of the dispute arose directly from the employment of the men under conditions that led to continual friction and misunderstanding. The fall and not the assault had caused death. Medical evidence was given that the fall and not the blow or blows received was the cause of death. For the defence counsel argued that it was possible that Banks’s death was directly due to a blow and not to his sliding fall down the slope. He declared that there was. no locality risk, as the ground was not dangerous. If an employer could be made responsible for an altercation between employees the position would be extraordinary. Counsel applied for a nonsuit. His Honor, giving judgment, said the case was a most unusual one. If the two men had decided to fight and the fall had been the result, then the matter wmuld be outside their employment, but the evidence did not go so far as that. His Honor held that Bank fell over the edge of the wall in the quarrel and this was just an ordinary locality risk case. The cause of the accident was not assault, but was due to a badly constructed wall with a drop of 4ft Gin. It was impossible to escape the conclusion that but for the condition of the wall and the drop Bank would not have died. Judgment would be for plaintiff for £396 18s 8d and £l7 13s 6d funeral expenses.