MINING ACCIDENTS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22294, 21 June 1934, Page 10

MINING ACCIDENTS

LIMITATION. OF COMPENSATION

FINDING OF APPEAL COURT.

(Pm United Press Association.) ' WELLINGTON, June 20.

An echo of an accident which occurred at the Waihi gold mine on July 26 jast when a cage which was being lowered into the company’s mine got out of controland plunged some 1500 feet, with resultant injury to inany men inside it, occupied the attention of the Pull Court to-day. - . A'A- k ', v

John Hielop Gordon, being one of those injured, subsequently brought an action against the Waihi Gold Mining Company in the Warden’s Court, under section 295 of the Mining Act, 1926, claiming £2147 lls 4d for damages in respect to his injuries. *-A The accident and injury were admitted. Gordon also admitted that there was no negligence by the company itself, but that the negligence causing his injury was that of a fellow-servant. Both parties were agreed that the company’s liability was the same as though it ; had been proved that the accident was caused by rbe negligence of a fellow-servant of Gordon. Damages were assessed by the court at £ISOO. ■'A':'.-

Upon an appeal being taken to the Supreme Court, it was contended on behalf of the company that Gordon’s right to damages was limited to £IOOO by virtue of section 67 of the Workers’ Compensation Act, 1922/ For Gordon it was contended that there was no-such limit, but Mr Justice Ostler, in delivering judgment on March 22 at Auckland, held that the company’s contention .was sound, and that Gordon's right to damages was limited to £IOOO. From this decision Gordon has appealed. At the conclusion of legal argument the court, gave Judgment in, favour of the respondent. The Chief Justice ruled that section 295 (3) of the Mining Act, 1926, must be construed as meaning that: so much of the Workers’ Compensation Act, 1922, as is applicable must be read into section 295 (3) of the Mining Act Accordingly section 67, of the Workers Compensation Act was applicable in,than way and the maximum amount of dam ages recoverable was £IOOO in 1 accordance! with the decision of the tri# judge. ‘ - • ■- '' . Mr Justice Reed and Mr Justice Johnston, concurred, and the appeal was- di? missed with 25 guineas costs.