DAMAGES AWARDED

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 74, Issue 141, 17 June 1931, Page 7

DAMAGES AWARDED

INTERESTING NELSON CASE WORKER’S POSITION DEFINED (Per fresn Association.) NELSON, June 16. An interesting point was raised when Robert Riach Rae claimed compensation from the Onekaka Iron and Steel Company, in liquidation, for an injury to a foot sustained by a fall in the the shower room. Giving judgment for the plaintiff for £42 and costs, Air Justice Fraser said that the case was interesting and in volved. There were two principles in compensation law. One was that a person who was required to work in or about certain premises was covered under a locality risk. A sailor was so covered for the whole 24. hours of each day. 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 an employer’s premises. The other principle was a distinction between privilege and duty. It. had been laid down that a worker was not protected by the Act if exercising a privilege, but. he was if doing a duty. His Honour 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 a ship and there was an undisclosed peril, the 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 if, in the present case, the man had swallowed the soap. The 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, the employer would not be liable. However, in the case before the Court, ’he employee was living in conditions similar to a sailor on a ship ami the accident arose from the locality where the employee had to be. There was a slippery concrete floor in the shower room, made slippery by the use of soap, and in the room was ai iron partition; The case was analogous t< that on a ship, and so the worker would be on titled to compensation under the locality risk. For the Act to apply, the employee must be doing a duty and not exorcising a privilege. Evidence was given that owing !•» the prevalence ot septic wounds among the men. an instruction had been issued that the men bath, and the natural interpretation had been given the in struction, which seemed to be generally understood. It was tho custom of ‘lie men to use the showers after work, and it would be impossible to say that it was not a reasonable extension of their employment time, apart from locality. It seemed to bo the duty of mon, under the control of their employment, to cleanse themselves after leaving off duty. Tho injury arose out of a worker doing what was his duty. Judgment was given for plaintiff r, ')r £42 16s, costs £l6 10s, and witnesses’ expenses.