COMPENSATION CLAIMS

Southland Times, Issue 23166, 6 April 1937, Page 3

COMPENSATION CLAIMS

ARBITRATION COURT JUDGMENTS CASE AGAINST CROWN Judgment for the Crown was given by the Arbitration Court in the case in which Marcellina Nolan, a widow, of Invercargill, claimed compensation for the death of Francis Joseph Nolan, who died on July 4, 1935. The case was heard last month and decision was reserved. The Court in its judgment, issued yesterday, stated:— Nolan at the time of his death was, and had been for some years, employed as an engine driver by the Railway Department. On several occasions during the 10 days before his death he had complained of attacks of pain m his chest which he ascribed to indigestion. On Sunday, June 28, 1935, after getting out of bed he had an attack while pulling on his socks, and another when pulling on his boots. After being given a stimulent he vomited, but shortly afterwards was able to go to his work. On Saturday, July 4, the deceased, after working on an engine, remarked to his fireman that he had had the worst attack of pain he had experienced. Deceased left the engine to ask another driver to exchange duties, as he did not feel well. He was next seen some minutes later lying on the ground about 75 yards e.way, and shortly afterwards he died. Approximately one hour had elapsed between the time of his arrival at work and the time of death. The evidence of all the doctors called agreed in one particular: that the deceased had suffered for some time from a disease of the heart kpown as sclerosis of the coronary arteries, which was a slowly progressive disease. The medical opinions given, however, varied as to the exact nature of the final event, but the weight of evidence was that on the day of his death the deceased suffered a coronary thrombosis, which was a probable sequel to sclerosis of the coronary arteries; it occurred independently of effort and frequently caused immediate death. A post-mortem examination was not made, so that the exact cause of death could only be inferred from the known facts and Symptoms. . The realm of conjecture was thus widened and the field of legitimate inference was consequently narrowed. In this case, while the exact method and cause of death were not known with certainty, the plain inference to be drawn from the weight of medical opinion was that the work which deceased had done on the day of his death had nothing to do with this unfortunate end. Judgment would, therefore, be for the Crown, with leave reserved to apply for costs. Claim Against County

The Court has delivered its reserved judgment in the case in which Mrs Eliza Dawson proceeded against the Southland County for £717 12/damages, £24 18/6 funeral expenses and £6 14/6 medical expenses in respect of the death of her husband, who was caught in a fall of gravel while working in a gravel pit on January 14, 1936. Judgment was given for the plaintiff for the amount claimed.

Two main grounds of defence were raised: (1) That deceased was not a worker within the meaning of the Workers Compensation Act 1922 and (2) that the widow was a partial dependent, only and not a total dependent, and that, if she was entitled to any compensation, it should not be for more than a nominal amount. The evidence showed (says the Court’s judgment) that Dawson, who was a gravel and Cartage contractor, and had done much work for the defendant council in January 1935, approached the county councillor for his riding and asked to be given some temporary work. An arrangement was made whereby he was put on to work in a council gravel pit at a wage of 11/6 a day, and his lorry, driven by his son, was engaged to work along with two county lorries in the cartage of gravel, the rate payable by the county for the lorry and driver being 7d a yard-mile of gravel removed. The Court entertained no doubt on the facts that the deceased was a servant in the employ of the defendant council and that he was a worker within the meaning of the Act. With regard to the question of dependency, it was shown that his widow was without any means whatever, and that during his life she was totally dependent and solely on him for her support and maintenance. In the opinion of the Court the evidence disclosed that the plaintiff was totally dependent on the earnings of the deceased within the meaning of the Act. She was therefore entitled to a sum, of 208 times his average weekly earnings. These had been agreed on at £3 9/- (six days at 11/6), and judgment must be entered for plaintiff for £717 12/-, plus funeral and medical expenses (£3l 13/-), with costs (£l5 15/-), and witnesses’ expenses. Traveller’s Claim The claim by Colin Kidston, traveller of Invercargill, against Schneiderman and Son. Ltd., of Invercargill, for compensation for injuries received by plaintiff in the course of his work was also heard by the Court last month and in its judgment, issued yesterday, the Court says:— “The accident occurred on December 9, 1935. On August 6, 1936, the plaintiff was certified as fit to return to work. His employers offered him the same employment at the same rate of remuneration, and they have continued that offer right up to the present date. It is admitted by the plaintiff that this was a genuine offer to re-employ him. The plaintiff, however, has refused to accept the employment. In our opinion he is entitled to compensation from December 9, 1935, to August 6, 1936, and not beyond that date. The amount of this compensation is £lll 2/1, from which must be deducted the sum of £BO already paid him. Judgment will accordingly be for plaintiff for the balance, £3l 2/1, with costs, £7 7/-, three medical witnesses at £2 2/- each, and plaintiff’s expenses, including attendance at Dunedin—three days at 12/- a day—plus Return railway fare.’’