FALL FROM HORSE.

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXVI, Issue 20456, 8 November 1934, Page 9

FALL FROM HORSE.

Injuries to Motunau Farm Manager. • COMPENSATION CLAIM. When William John Stackwood, a farm manager, of Vulcan Downs. Motunau, was thrown from a horse in November of last year, he was dragged some distance along the ground and suffered serious injuries. In the Arbitration Court this morning, before Mr Justice Frazer and Messrs A. L. Monteith, employees’ representative. and Cecil Prime, employers’ representative, Stackwood sought compensation in respect to the accident from Eric C. Gardiner, of Leinster Road, St Albans. It was submitted on plaintiff’s behalf that he was totally and permanently incapacitated. Mr W. T. Sim appeared for plaintiff and the defendant was represented by Mr J. D. Hutchison. The statement of claim set out that while in the employ of the defendant, on November 6, 1933, the plaintiff was thrown from a horse and dragged some distance along the ground. As a result, he suffered a fracture of the left fibia and fibula, a fracture of the right clavicle. bruising of the chest, and severe shock. Since then plaintiff had re mained totally disabled and was still receiving medical treatment. At the time of the accident he vtes in receipt of £2OO a year, and. in addition, receded rent and certain supplies free, to a total value of £2 a week. His average weekly earnings were not less than £6 Compensation had been paid to plain tiff for a period of 41 weeks from No vember 30. 1933, to August 20. 1934, al the weekly rate of £3, calculated or the basis of an average weekly earning of £4 10s. The plaintiff claimed a weekly payment at the rate of £4 fron 1 November 6. 1933. to date, a reasonable lump sum. an allowance for medica expenses, further relief as may in th< circumstances be just, and costs of th< action.. The statement of defence denied tha plaintiff suffered the injuries itemised

or that they were such as to incapacitate him totally or permanently. The j salary of £2OO a year was admitted, but 1 the suggestion that any additions to plaintiff’s salary had a minimum value ot £2 a week was refuted. In giving judgment his Honor said the Court assessed plaintiff's earnings at £5 10s, which would entitle him to weekly compensation of £3 13s 4d. It appeared that plaintiff was an “ odd I lot ” on the labour market, for the I present at least, as it had not been shown in what way he could apply his knowledge of farming Judgment would be for plaintiff for 100 per cent compensation to date, compensation at ■ that rate—£3 13s 4d—to continue for the remainder of the period of liability. Judgment was subject to an application being made under Section 29 of the Workers’ Compensation Act for a review of the case. Costs were fixed at £ls 15s and witnesses’ expenses £4 4s.