A RANGER’S INJURIES.

Waimate Daily Advertiser, Volume XXIII, 3 February 1923, Page 2

A RANGER’S INJURIES.

COMPENSATION CLAIMED FROM WAIMATE COUNCIL. HEARING AT TIMARU YESTERDAY. Compensation from the Waimate County Council on account of injuries suffered as the result of an ac--1 cident in 1921, when he was- acting ' as ranger and dog tax collector for 1 the Council, was claimed by William ' John Hicks, of Waimate, at a sitting of the Arbitration Court at Timaru yesterday. The claim was made under the Workers’ Compensation Act. Mr A. C. Middleton appeared for the plaintiff and Mr W. D. Campbell, instructed by Messrs Hamilton and Fitch, appeared for the defendant — the County. - Mr Mddleton briefly outlined the facts of the ease, and dealt with several points that would be raised. The plaintiff gave evidence that hewas ranger and dog tax collector for the Waimate County Council, whqp he was injured in 1921. He had received directions from the county engineer and the foreman with regard to his work as ranger. He met with an accident on July 4, 1921. On that day he left the Waimate pound about 5 o’clock and went home by the Junction road instead of the main road with a view to finding any cattle that might be illegally on the roads. Witness then described how he was run into by a vehicle. Later he was attended by Dr. Hayes, and witness understood from what he said that he would take the necessary steps for him to get the insurance money. After witness had been in the hospital six weeks he became an outpatient and later had to go back in again, Then in January, 1922, Dr Hayes told him that if he wanted any compensation he would have to hurry up. Witness was surprised to hear this, and immediately sent for a solicitor. Witness was not able to do any manual work. He had earned 10s during the past year.. Dr E. C. Hayes said that on the second day after plaintiff was injured he told him that he should see about getting the insurance money. After a discussion witness said he would see the county engineer, as the plaintiff was not able to do so. Witness saw the engineer, told him about the accident and endeavoured to get the plaintiff’s son appointed as ranger in place of his father. Witness described the effect of the plaintiff’s injury. He suffered considerable pain, his earning power had been reduced by 75 per cent. His injured leg was. now much shorter, and there was little possibility of the plaintiff ever being able to do any work. J. C. McLauehlan, clerk and engineer for the Waimate County Council, stateff that it was customary to give the ranger instructions with regard to the carrying out of hisduties. To Mr Campbell: Since witness had been in his position (from June 1 last) the ranger’s wages had been paid to plaintiff. Witness understood that the Council allowed the plaintiff’s son to carry on the work after his father was injured. This concluded the evidence for the plaintiff. Dr G. E. Gabites gave evidence that he had examined the plaintiff. Wastage of his leg was noticeable and it was obviously short. It was a difficult break and the setting had turned out very well. There- did not seem to be much pain when his leg was moved, but, of course, he complained of pain, which, he said, was in front of the leg and not in the baek. Plaintiff’s earning power was' limited; but it was certainly mnetf more than it would be if he had lost his leg. His earning power had been reduced from 50 to 60 per cent. Witness considered that the condition of the leg would improve considerably. Dr Ussher in his evidence said that assuming that a man were 75' per cent, incapacitated if he lost a leg, he would say that the defendant was incapacitated to the extent of from 50 to 60 per cent. Witness presumed that he would always suffer some pain from the injured leg. Considerable time was occupied in takng the doctors’ evidence, there being a great deal of arguments over the extent to which the plaintiff could move his leg. Mr Campbell raised the following points against the claim:—(l) That the accident did not arise out of and in the course of the employment; (2) That notice in writing of the accident was not given as provided by The Workers’ Compensation Act; (3) That the action.was not commenced within six months from the date of the accident; (4) That the plaintiff

was an independent contractor and not a worker. As regards the last point, which was the most important, Mr Campbell stated that Hicks had signed a contract and no matter what letters and explanations were put in the Court would have to take the contract as it stood. With regard to the contention that Hicks .was under- the control of the Council’s officers counsel pointed out that there always was a certain amount of control in every contract. One clause in the contract showed completely that Hicks was not a servant of the Council, as it was stated that the dog collars would be issued to the contractor by the Council. Therp was also the question of notfication and the fact that the action had not been started within the six months prescribed by the Act. The fact that the plaintiff had relied on Dr Hayes to attend to the question, of insurance was not sufficient excuse. Counsel quoted a long list of authorities to support his contention, and said he would not press the point about sufficient notice not being giv.en. Mr Middleton, in opening, , proceeded to deal with ths point, and his Honour stated that there did not seem to be any question about the Council being notified. Apparently the trouble was. that the Council had failed to notify the insurance company. Mr Middleton contended 1 that the plaintiff had good reason for not starting the action within the six months laid down. No tonly had Hicks left the matter to Dr Hayes, but when he was an out-patient of the Hospital he spoke to the County Clerk about his insurance money and the Clerk replied that he would look into, it.. Hicks went baek into the Hospital with an easy mind and. was justified in assuming that either Dr Hayes or the Clerk would, see that everything was in order. He knew nothing about the time limit until the critical six months had expired, and then he lost no time in issuing. the writ. Until after the writ had’been issued he never once received any hint that his claim to compensation would be disputedCouncil described the six months limitation in the Act as a- mere technicality and formality and. submitted that the provision enabling the Court to entertain the claim provided the plaintiff showed that, his delay was due to mistake or reasonable cause, should receive a liberal interpretation in favour of the injured workman. A considerable number of English and New Zealand authorities were cited on this point. A New Zealand judgment and a judg meat of the House of Lords were cited on the point that the accident arose out of the employment. After the luncheon adjournment, Mr Middleton dealt with the main queston in the defence and contended that Hicks was a workman; that there was nothing in the agreement in consistent with this. The agreement indicated that (a) that he was to be controlled as a worker and the evidence showed that he actually was; (b) that he was to receive wages ; whiieh was a usual attribute of the re lationship O f master and. servant; ,(c) that the contract was for Hicks’ personal service and Hicks had no power to delegate the work. Numerous authorties, were cited 1 At the conclusion of counsel’s address, His Honour, Mn Justice Frasier, remarked on the interesting and important nature of the points raisand intimated that judgment would ,be reserved.