ACCIDENT COMPENSATION.

Patea Mail, Volume XLIV, 26 November 1920, Page 2

ACCIDENT COMPENSATION.

ARBITRATION COURT PROCEEDINGS. A SHA REMILK El? ’8 CLAIM. At a sitting o I the Arbitration Court M New Plymouth on Friday, Mr. Justice* .Stringer presiding, a claim of £>7o was preferred by Thomas G. Simpson (Mr. P. O’Don) against Geary Bros., of Manutahi (Mr. Weir), for compensation for injuries sustained resulting in the loss of a log. Simpson was working as a sharemilker for defendants under a written agreement from .1015 to 15)ID. On May 21 of that year ho was taking the milk to the factory, and on the wgy back mot with an accident, being thrown out of the waggon, the wheel of which passed over his leg. Simpson was removed to the hospital, and an operation became necessary a week latexowing to gangrene setting in. The patient was an inmate of the hospital for about nine months. On one occasion Simpson inquired from one of the Geary’s as to his compexisation, and he was told not to bother about 'that, as he was insured, and all he had to do was to get well.

in outlining these facts Mr. O’Dea •said that owing to Simpson’s illness there was a delay iu filling in the insurance form, and ultimately he was sent by Geary to see the secretary of the insurance company. The latter asked Simpson if ho called at the hotel on the morning of (he accident, and on Simpson replying that he had, the secretary said; “Perhaps if you hadn’t there would have been no accident. We are not going to pay.”

Counsel said that the point was involved as to whether a shareniilkcr was a worker within the meaning of (he Act, a partner—as some judges had held—or whether he was an independent contractor.

Mr. Weir intimated to (lie Court lliiil the agreement stipulated that Simpson should not he eonsidere 1 a partner, so this point was disposed of. Dealing with the remaining issue, Mi’ O’Doa sa.d that in no case had a sharemilker been held to bejin independent contractor. He quoted the decision of (he Chief Justice, which gave the ojunion that a sharemilker was a .servant for the milking season. Evidence was given by Dr. Bui si (Haworn) and T. G. Simpson, the claimant, and Gordon and May Simpson, son and daughter respectively of plaintiff.

For the defence, evidence was given by T. Geary. He slated he referred Simpson to the insurance company on the question of compensation. ‘William .T. Tristram, secretary to the Taranaki Farmers’ Mutual Insurance Association, said .Simpson called on him on May MI, 1920. He was informed that no liability was recognised, •and advised him to see a solicitor. For the defence, Mr. Weir raised two points. The iirst was that Simpson had not made application for compensntion within the time limit imposed by the statute. A period of thirteen jnonths elapsed before action was taken. .Secondly, it was contended that oven if it had been in 'time, Simpson could not be classed as a worker within the meaning of the Act. Decision was reserved.