COMPENSATION COURT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 26115, 30 March 1946, Page 8

COMPENSATION COURT

CLAIM AGAINST EXPRESS COMPANY * I FELLOW EMPLOYEES INVOLVED The Compensation Court, presided over-by Mr Justice Ongley, was engaged yesterday in the hearing of a claim by Norman Patrick Lindsay against the New Zealand Express Company, Ltd., for £4l 6s 4d compensation for loss of wages from May 8 to July 11, 1945, inclusive, and £1 medical expenses. The plaintiff claimed that he was struck by a fellowemployee, James Little, at 434 Highgate, Dunedin, on May 8, with the result that his jaw came into violent with the edge of a door and was fractured in two places. Mr J. B. Thomson appeared for the plaintiff and Mr A. N. Haggitt represented the defendant company. Mr Thomson said that on May 8, 1945, which, although it was not officially V-E Day, was marked by a certain amounl of anticipatory joy and exaltation, the plaintiff and a companion. Larkins, were employed by the defendant company in moving furniture from a residence in Highgate. Early in the afternoon they went to a residence and were invited by several other employees of the defendant company who were there to have a drink. They did so, and this was first and only drink they had that day. Little who was one of the Express Company’s employees on the scene, had had liquor. After Lindsay had moved Little’s truck, and had leaded furniture on to it, while Little himself had done nothing, he spoke to Little on the subject. Subsequently Lindsay was invited by Little to go into a room in the house. He did so, and as he went through the doorway Little struck him on the jaw. He fell against the edge of the door and fractured his jaw m two places, necessitating his absence from work from May 8 to July 11, inclusive. There was no suggestion that there was any bad feeling between the two men, but it was suggested that Little had had too much liquor. Evidence was given by witnesses for both parties For the defendant company Mr Haggitt submitted that there was no proof that the injuries suffered by the plaintiff had been caused by his striking the door. From the evidence of the plaintiff himself, if he had fallen against the door it would have swung away from him. It was the duty of any workman to report an accident, and the report entered by the plaintiff was merely that he had been struck a blow by Little. Counsel submitted that it was practically impossible to reconcile all the cases in which the words “arising out of employment’’ were used, and that in this case the company was not liable. After hearing legal, argument, the court reserved its decision.