SUPREME COURT.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LX, Issue 17078, 4 September 1917, Page 4

SUPREME COURT.

CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION.

ACCIDENT TO A WORKMAN.

At the Supreme Court yesterday i^PWtMr.AlpersnnconseqS? hL ?; acojd6nt sustained by him in the defendant Company's employ. The statement of claim was as SOQI5 OQIr 8:i~ That: °* DeccembS 23! ' l»16, plaintiff was employed by defendant company at the freezinworks at imlay, his total weekly" earnings averaging £4 Is 6d. On that day, after he was sent to the , digester room, he fell through an aperture in the floor. It was alleged, that the company negligently and in breach of its statutory duty nad left the aperture open and unguarded. Plaintiff alleged that he had not been -warned and he did not know of the existence of the aperture. He fell through the aperture on to a concrete floor 20ft below. He thereby sustained seriour and irreparable injury to hlg spme, left leg and other parts of the body, and suffered grievous pain As a result of the injury he has been since December 23,^L 916, and will be for an indefinite period, unable to tollow any occupation and his earning, power for the rest of his life has been considerably diminished. Therefore plaintiff claimed as ' special damages (a) the sum of £104 3 9s. 6d (for loss of earnings during the period between December 23, 1916, and the present date, less the sum of £50 9s received from the de-' fendant company), £54 10s- 6d(b) Wanganui Hospital account, ' £18. 3s; (c) as, general damages: for diminished earning power, pain and suffering, future medical and massage treatment, etc., £1750, a total of £J. 822 13s 6d.

Mr. Collins outlined the circumstances surrounding the accident. H* said there was a duty imposed on every employer of labour to pro- - tect employees from injury. This was in accordance with the Factories Act, and counsel alleged that the company committed a breach of 1 Statutory duty. He mentioned that the defence would raise the question of contributory negligence. Mr. Collins held that there was no settled/ method for conveying offal to the digester till plaintiff's brother had submitted a scheme to the foreman of the works, which had since been adopted by the company. The main difference of opinion would be to what extent Harper had been personally injured. Counsel concluded by saying that before the claim had been formulated leading medical ■authorities had been consulted, and they had agreed with local practitioners as to the" treatment and the nature of the injuries. - For the defence Mr. Alpers denied negligence' or a breach of any statutory duty by the company, anil also that any aperture' had been left open and unguarded. It was denied that plaintiff was not warned, and that he did not know of the existence of the aperture. . It was admitted, however, that plaintiff had sustained a serious injury, but it was denied that it was irreparable, v" Counsel alleged that there was.contributory negligence oii the part of plaintiff in that well itnowihg and appreciating the risk and danger,of so doing and without the authority A <^ or knowledge of defendant he had ▼^ adopted an unsafe and unnecessary method of returning empty caskg from the digester vats to the lift. Before the action'was brought the company had admitted its\ liabilitj to pay compensation to the ,plaintifi under "The Workers Compensation Act, 1908," in respect of his injuries,' and had paid him certain sums by way of compensation at the rate. of £2 0s 9d per week, being a half of the weekly wages of plaintiff. The company had always been and still was ready and willing to continue the weekly payments for so long as plaintiff might be entitled to receive the same or to compound the, same for a lump sum as the Court may direct. . . . i Evidence was called on behalf of f I both parties.... .; . . ; The jury awarded the plaintiff £913 13s 6d compensation, and judgment was given accordingly.