WORKER INJURED ON BATHROOM FLOOR.

Star (Christchurch), Volume XLIV, Issue 142, 17 June 1931, Page 5

WORKER INJURED ON BATHROOM FLOOR.

INTERESTING POINT IN COMPENSATION CLAIM.

Press Association.

3SLELSON, June 16. An interesting poirrt-was raised when Robert Rlach Rae claimed compensation from the Onekaka Iron and Steel Company* (in liquidation) for injury to a foot sustained by a fall in the shower room. Giving judgment for plaintiff for £42 sCnd costs, his Honor Mr Justice Frazer said the case was interesting and involved two principles in compensation lavfr.

One was that a person who was required to work in or about certain premises was covered under the locality risk. A sailor was so covered for the whole twenty-four hours of each day. V The circumstances in the Onekaka case appeared to be similar to a sailor being injured on a ship, or a domestic; servant who was required to live on the emplojer’s premises. The other principle was the distinction between privilege and duty. It had been laid down that a worker was not protected by the Act if exercising a privilege, but that he was protected if doing a duty.

Ilis Honor then referred to the locality principle. In the case of a sailor who fell down a manhole while washing his clothes, the reason he was given compensation was that he had to live on the ship and that there was an undisclosed peril (a manhole) into which he fell. The same thing would apply in the case of an hotel servant slipping and injuring herself while returning from a laundry on the premises with her own clothes. A ridiculous example, but one which emphasised the point, was that if in the present case the man had swallowed the soap his employer would not then have been liable, as it would have been a personal matter. Similarly if a domestic servant were to get a fish bone In her throat her employer would not be liable.

However, in the case before the court the employee was living under conditions sirdilar to the sailor on a ship and the accident arose from the locality where the employee had to be. There was a slippery, concrete floor in the shower room, made slipperv by the use of soap, and in the room there was an iron partition. The case was analogous to that on the ship, and so the ■worker would be entitled to compensation under the locality risk. For the Act to applv the employee must bo doing his duty and not exercising a privilege. Evidence had been given by the manager of the company, the plaintiff and the union secretary that, owing to the prevalence of septic wounds among the men, instructions had been issued that the men should bathe and the natural interpretation had been given to the instruction which seemed to be generallv understood. It was the custom of the men to use the showers after work it would be impossible to say it was not a reasonable extension of his

employment time. Apart from the locality it seemed to be the duty of the men under the control of their employment to cleanse themselves after leaving off duty. The injury arose out of the worker doing what was his duty. Judgment was given for plaintiff for £42 10s, costs £lO 10s and witnesses’ expenses.