SMASH ON A .VIADUCT.

Waikato Times, Volume 104, Issue 17533, 15 October 1928, Page 6

SMASH ON A .VIADUCT.

MINE WORKER'S INJURIES. CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION. GANGER AWARDED £450. J i . "1 His Honour. Mr Justice Blair wa* to-day. at Hamilton, asked to fix the amount of compensation under the Compensation Act, due to Theodore Edward Herbert who was injflured in a collision on a viaduct between Ngaruawahia and Glen Masses", whilst in the employ of the Waipa Railways and Colliers Ltd., on November 17 last Mr P. H. Watts represented plaintiff and Mr E. Parry, Wellington, defendant company. Plaintiff, it will be remembered, brought a claim for £1895 damages against the company for negligence at -the last sitting of the Court The claim was unsuccessful. To-day medical evidence was caDed on behalf of the company to show the degree of incapacity from which plaintiff suffers. Dr. Hugh Douglas said he examined Herbert on May 31. He described plaintiff's injuries: which were chiefly to his left hand and left leg. There was a good strong union of the fracture of the leg but a considerable thickening of bone and the range of movement outwardly was limited to about 10 -or 15 degrees, as against the normal 45. The ankle caused pain if plaintiff walked muoh. He had other smaller injuries from which he had recovered at the time of the examination. He had lost, for instance, three teeth and had had a cut on the chin as well as some injury to the jaw, but his mouth was able to open and shut quite well. The injuries, to the left arm he also had almost completely recovered from. His percentage of physical incapacity was about 25 per cent. The fact of doing some light work might tend to hasten recovery of the ankle. Witness would have expected an improvement in plaintiff s condition since the time of the examination although, doubtless, he would still be suffering pain from the ankle. In answer to His Honour witness said he disagreed with the evidence previously given by Dr. Joseph if the latter said that the foot had shot forward one-half to three-quarters of an inch at the actual joint. He also disagreed with Dr. Joseph's evidence that the whole of the ankle joint was disorganised. v Dr. E. Cecil Brewis, who examined plaintiff three days after the accident, agreed with Dr. Douglas' description j of the injuries in practically every dei tail. He had examined plaintiff several j times since the first occasion. Entire I recovery was, he said, quite impossible. I Plaintiff's condition was such that j while there might be an improvement ! for a time, ultimately there was a possibility of the joint stiffening up more. j He would always experience some pain. The mechanical incapacity of the leg j joint was about 25 per cent. This was J distinct from the percentage incapacity j for work. Plaintiff's experience had ! been that where an injury had been received, to the ankle bonej either from gunshot wound or from accident or otherwise, resulting in any displacement of the bone, no matter how slight, pain was invariably suffered in ihe newly-formed bone or through undue strain being thrown on the muscles. His Hoinour assessed the extent of incapacity at 90 per cent of the 60 per cent, fixed by schedule for the complete loss of one foot. On this basis plaintiff will receive approximately £452.