A DOMESTIC’S INJURY.

Otago Witness, Issue 3803, 1 February 1927, Page 10

A DOMESTIC’S INJURY.

COURT REFUSES COMPENSATION. AUCKLAND, January 26. A novel claim for compensation, in which a domestic servant , proceeded against an hotel proprietor as a sequel to the poisoning of her right thumb, attributed by her to the use of home-made soap in her work of xvashing and scrubbing, has been dismissed by the Arbitration Court in a reserved judgment. The plaintiff was Mabel Adeline Oakes and the defendant Alfred Holliday, proprietor of the Warkxvorth Hotel, Warkworth. The ingredients of the soap used bv her were caustic soda and fat, combined in the ratio of 11b of caustic soda to 71b of fat. She noticed after some weeks that the skin of her hands was becoming rough and developing small cracks, and later complained to Mrs Holliday that hcr right thumb was swollen and painful. Poultices'were applied, and, acting on the suggestion of Mrs Holliday that the hot water might soften the thumb and afford relief, she did the hotel washing on one day, but the thumb was still swollen and painful. She ceased work and had her thumb lanced, the surgeon expressing the opinion that the cracking of the skin- was caused by the caustic soda in the soap. The lancing did not improve the thumb, from which a small portion of necrosed bone had to be removed. There was still some stiffness and limitation of movement. “Although the court considered it questionable if this affected plaintiff’s earning power, there is no doubt,” Mr Justice Frazer states, “that if a worker contracts a disease that is the consequential result of accidental circumstances arising out of and in the course of employment, compensation is recoverable. There must. however. be proof of accidental circumstances.” He quoted cases in the circumstances of which

there was a sudden and unexpected happening. Some strain or knock,. even though trivial in itself, was required to abrade the skin and reopen a crack in it, and thus would be regarded as an accident. but a morbid' condition that was gradually contracted did not enttitle the xvorker, except in certain cases of industrial disease, to receiv’e compensation. It was clear the roughening of the hand and the cracking of the skin in the present case xvas a gradual process, even if the court found that the use of soap xvas the cause of the cracking of the skin, it xvould still be unable to find that the cracking xvas an accident in the proper sense of the word, and it xvould, therefore, be obliged to require proof that the bacilli that entered plaintiff’s thumb xvere of a species particularly associated xvith her work, and that the infection itself arose out of, and in course of, her employment. The medical witnesses xvere unable to express an opinion as to the origin of the infection, and the court could not hazard a guess. The contention that the condition of the thumb was aggravated by the performance of a day’s xx ashing xvas dismissed, the court holding that there was no evidence to support it, and that in any event the soaking of the hands in hot xvater would act as a fomentation and be beneficial rather than deleterious. Judgment was gix’en for defendant, and leave reserved for him to apply for costs.