USE OF FINGER LOST

Taranaki Daily News, 13 April 1935, Page 5

USE OF FINGER LOST

FARM HAND WHO JUMPED HEDGE. COURT GIVES COMPENSATION. A claim for compensation for the permanent loss of the use of the middle finger of the right hand was brought by. Raymond Bloor, farm hand, Te Roti, against Charles Gibson, farmer, Eltham. The court held that Bloor incurred the accident in pursuance of his work and was entitled to full compensation, £2 2s 6d for the period of incapacitation and thereafter according to the schedule, with costs £8 Bs. Mr. A. K. North, Hawera, appeared for Bloor and Mr. J. L. Weir, Eltham, for Gibson. Bloor was a farm hand employed by Gibson at £1 a week and free board, said Mr. North. He was in the habit of jumping or pole-vaulting a 4ft. barberry hedge round the house instead of going round by the gate. On March 5, 1934, he misjudged, landed on a stump, stumbled, and : a thorn pierced his finger. He was subsequently admitted to the Hawera hospital. He was totally incapacitated from March 12 to May 30 and

had permanently, lost the use of the finger. Notice of the accident was given to Gibson, who denied liability. Mr. North suggested that the main point for consideration was that the risk involved in jumping the hedge differed in degree but not in kind from the usual risks of employment. It was not a risky thing to do. The taking of a. short cut Was not necessarily fatal to a claim under the Act. The employer knew that Bloor was in the habit of jumping the hedge. . . Mr. Weir stated that Gibson denied that the accident occurred in the course of Bloor’s employment. It was also denied that, Bloor was totally incapacitated over the period stated or that he had permanently lost the use of his finger. Mr. Weir suggested that Bloor was merely indulging in extra practice in view of coming sports. He contended that Bloor had temporarily given up his employment for practice with a hope of winning a prize at pole-vaulting. After a short retirement the court announced that there was no dispute about the facts, the only issue being the points of law- If a man, did something his employment did not reasonably require him to do, he incurred an added peril. 11. was sometimes difficult to draw the line between an added peril and an in-

creased risk. In this case there was a young athletic man who jumped fences habitually to. the knowledge of his employer. . The jumping of the fence presented no difficulty to him, but it was just his misfortune in landing on the stump by misjudgment and stumbling. There was litlte practice in pole-vault-ing a 4ft. hedge. Ordinarily there was no risk and it was a reasonable thing to do in pursuance of his duty. Compensation would be granted at the rate of £2 2s 6d for the ’period to May 30 and at the schedule rate for the remainder of the period of liability.