MANGAHAO DISASTER.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17035, 8 May 1923, Page 11

MANGAHAO DISASTER.

QUESTION OF DAMAGES. (Per Press Association.) WELLINGTON. May 7. Several important legal questions arising out of the recent Mangahao disaster were the subject of argument in a special case before Mr Justice Salmond on Saturday. It will be remembered that on the night of Sunday, July 3, 1922, seven men met their death by suffocation at the Mangahao tunnel. With the exception of three, who were officers of the Public Works Department, all the other deceased were mem hers of a co-operative tunnelling party, between whom and the Department tho ordinary relations of master and servant did not exist. The members of the party, however, made a special contract with the Government Accident Insurance Department, by which they were entitled, in the event of to the benefit of the Workers’ Compensation Act. The widows of deceased considered this provision insufficient, and instituted proceedings claiming £2OOO, alleging that the disaster was due to negligence. In reply to those claims, the Department pleaded that each member of the party signod an agreement to the effect that they would look to the insurance policy alone for compensation, and would make no claim for damages by reason of anv wrongful act, neglect or default in ‘'connection with the works in the construction of the tunnel. the Grown it wa» contended that this agreement precluded plaintiffs from maintaining any action for damages. By agreement, a special case was stated to the Court to have this point defined. Two other questions also were involved. One was whether a woman who lost both husband and son could make two separate claims. The other was whether, in assessing compensation under the Act. account should he taken of any insurance money coming to dependant* by reason of any contract of insurance effected by deceased on hi* own life. Mi Justice Salmond reserved hi 3 decision.