SLIPPED ON A DOORSTEP

Taranaki Daily News, 14 March 1933, Page 5

SLIPPED ON A DOORSTEP

WOMAN INJURES HER ANKLE - EMPLOYMENT AS HOUSEKEEPER. COURT AWARDS COMPENSATION. Compensation for personal injury received when she slipped on the doorstep of her employer’s ’ house at Hawera on August 29, 1931, was claimed in the Arbitration Court at New Plymouth yesterday by Mary Ellen Barker against Gwyn Milne. Judgment was given in favour of Miss Barker in accordance with the medical evidence of incapacity. Making, an allowance of 15s per week as wages and £1 per week for keep, the Court allowed two-thirds of 35s weekly for the period of total incapacity from the date of the accident to February 1, 1933, and. 4s per week for the remainder of the period of liability. Costs amounting to £l3 2s were allowed, together with witnesses’ expenses. Mr. P. Thomson appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. R. H. QuiUiam for the Crown as mortgagee in the bankrupt estate of Mrs. Milne.

The statement of claim set out that the plaintiff entered the employ of the defendant five days before the accident at 15s a week. She was in hospital from August 29, 1931, to July 23, 1932, and was an out-patient till September 15. j The hospital account was for £196 14s 6d. The claim was for £96 Is for total incapacity for a year and seven months, £2l 6s 8d for partial incapacity for six months from March 29, 1933, £1 for medical expenses, costs of the action, and such further relief as the Court might decide. No wages or compensation had been paid. Dr.- J. Cairney, medical superintendent of the Hawera hospital, said plaintiff’s left ankle joint was partially dislocated. • It proved impossible to get the bone back by manipulation and eventually an operation? was necessary to replace it. Unfortunately the skin* and fat gave way on the surface of the foot and the injury' was thus complicated. He had considered whole skin grafting, but had decided against this. Later he covered the wound over with partial skin grafting. In September he thought total incapacity would last another six months and -he had hoped the ankle would eventually recover. This hope had not been realised, however, and though some of the swelling had gone the ankle remained stiff because the bones were fused. This was a permanent state and involved 50 per cent of the loss of the leg, or two-thirds of the loss of the lower part :of the leg. PERMANENT DISABILITY. To Mr. QuiUiam: The disability would show itself in permanent stiffness. Miss Barker - not complain of pain so much as. tiredness after use. This condition would tend to improve rather than grow 'worse. Her movements would be impeded. The possibility of her employment as a housekeeper would be affected; she - could keep a small sweet shop or dressmaking establishment Mrs. Fanny Barker, Stratford, said she saw Mrs.' Milne at the hospital, the' day after the accident and again a fortnight later. On another occasion Mrs. Milne said she was responsible and was sorry for the accident She asked witness to take out a claim for £3OO. Witness said she could not do so as her daughter was of, age and working. Mrs. Milne then suggested Miss Barker should do so, but not until- she was out of the hospital, as it would be no use. Mrs. Milne, questioned,’said that she was not paying into, an accident fund, but into a Government indemnity, fund. Mrs. Milne did not seem to-notice witness’ question whether there was ; ‘a set time during which the claim had to be made. Mrs. Milne said she had made all inquiries and that everything was all right Tp Mr. QuiUiam: She thought the conversation with Mrs. Milne took place two or three months after the accident. The final conversation occurred on Saturday, February 20. Mrs. Milne, a trained nurse, wanted to take Miss Barker to her house, but the doctor said it could not be done.

Mr. Quilliam called evidence for the defence. Mrs. Milne said she was made bankrupt last September, but 12 months before she had assigned her estate to a trustee. She took it as a matter of course that she was responsible for compensation; she had not actually discussed the matter with Mrs. Barker. She could not recollect having mentioned a Government indemnity fund to'Mrs. Barker. She did not know of such a thing. She had told Mrs. Barker she had better see a lawyer after her daughter left the hospital She -did not remember suggesting a claim of .£300; she 'expected a claim but did not know what amount >it would be. In order to save expenses running'up she had suggested to the hospital doctor that she herself should nurse Miss Barker. She was not insured in respect to the employment of Miss Barker.'-' - To Mr. Thomson: She had always found Mrs. Barker to be trustworthy and straightforward. u EVIDENCE OF SURGEON. "J , John Maxwell Clarke, surgeon, said he had examined plaintiff on Saturday. He agreed that there was permanent disability. He estimated the loss of permanent disability at 25 per cent, of the loss of the leg; he regarded the absence of pain as a factor to be considered. He admitted to the Court that plaintiff’s gait would be affected. She would be able in time to move about the house without a stick. Miss Barker said that while in hospital she was visited on several occasions by her mother. Mrs. Milne visited her on the day after the accident.- She had left the question of compensation with her mother, with whom she had discussed the matter. From time to time her mother reported what , was taking place between her and Mrs. Milne. Cross-examined, Mrs. Barker said she could not say how many times she saw Mrs. Milne during the time she was in hospital—it would not be more than three or four times. She had not discussed compensation with Mrs. Milne. To His Honour: She had not increased in weight as a result of her illness. Mr. Quilliam said the defence was that the claim was out of time and that the plaintiff had. failed to establish a mistake or other reasonable cause for such a delay. The plaintiff must show that she was lulled into inaction and a false sense of security by something done or said by the defendant. He had no doubt that Mrs. Barker and Mrs. Milne had each given the Court an honest account of what they thought took place, but' unfortunately what actually happened between the two was not comprehensible. It was important that the Court should know what had occurred. It was not possible for the Court to take anything from the evidence that could be construed as a promise or assurance by Mrs. Milne lulling Mrs. Barker into a false sense of security. Mr. Thomson said it was idle for the other side to suggest Mrs. Milne knew nothing about the Workers’ Compensation Act, for she had previously discussed, the matter with her trustee. He submi.fed that the fact that the day after Miss Barker’s discharge from the hospital she went to see a lawyer at Stratford was indicative that she was wasting no time in acting on advice from Mrs. Milne. Tn the course of his remarks on tfea.

case His Honour said the question whether Mrs. Milne, by any admission of liability she had made, seeing that her interest in the matter ceased within a month of the date of the accident, could make her trustees liable, might, if necessary, have to be argued in the Supreme Court, but the Court was not at the manient .concerned with. the. point.