RELIEF WORKER’S DEATH

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXVII, Issue 19372, 22 December 1932, Page 13

RELIEF WORKER’S DEATH

INTERESTING COMPENSATION CLAIM. By Telegraph—Press Association CHRISTCHURCH. December 21. The death of a relief worker through an accident that occurred when he was travelling on a lorry after work formed the basis of an interesting compensation case heard in the Arbitration Court at Christchurch to-day. Argument centred round the liability of certain parties for the accident, and whether the relief worker owed a duty to his employers to be travelling in the lorry when he met his death. The plaintiff in the action was Elizabeth Sarah . O’Neill, widow, of Rangiora, and the defendants were the Rangiora Borough Council and the North Canterbury Electric Power Board. The Alliance Insurance Company and the Yorkshire Insurance Company were interested in the action as third parties. Statement of Claim. The plaintiff brought the action on behalf of herself and other dependents of her late husband, Cornelius O’Neill, according to the statement of claim. It was further explained that on August 30, 1932, Cornelius O’Neill, while employed by the defendants, was killed in Tramway Road, Ohapuku, as the result of an accident arising out of his employment. The plaintiff and four children were wholly dependent on him, and four other persons were partially dependent on him. O’Neill’s average weekly earnings had been £2/16/10. The defendants had paid nothing to the defendant by way of compensation in respect to the death of her husband, and she therefore claimed sucli compensation as the Court deemed her entitled to, funeral and medical expenses totalling £23/18/-, the costs of the action, and such further relief as the Court might hold as necessary to meet the case. Employment Denied. The defence of the North Canterbury Electric Power Board was that O’Neill was not employed by it at the time of the alleged accident, and that he was not killed by any accident either arising out of or in the course of such alleged employment within the meaning of the Workers’ Compensation Act. The defence of the Rangiora Borough Council was along similar lines. It was denied that O’Neill was in the employ of the defendant when killed, and it was not admitted that the council was liable for the payment of compensation. The insurance companies also denied the question that O’Neill was employed at the time he was killed. The Alliance Company added: “If it be proved that O’Neill was in the employment of the defendant borough, which the third party denies, then he was not employed upon council work as an unemployed relief worker.” His Honour found that there was no doubt that O’Neill was killed by an accident arising in the course of his employment, so that the body which was his employer was liable. On the question of who was O'Neill’s employer, His Honour said O’Neill was certainly in the employ of the Rangiora Borough Council. It had applied for an unemployment grant, and was expending it as authorised by the

Finance Act. 'Hie evidence showed that the understanding all through was that the Council was employing the men, the Power Board merely finding work without accepting responsibility. Judgment was given for plaintiff against the Rangiora Borough Council for £591/1/4, funeral and medical expenses £23/l«/- and costs £ls/15/-.