INJURIES & CLAIMS.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1775, 13 June 1913, Page 9

INJURIES & CLAIMS.

TRIMMER CAUGHT IN WINCH.

ENGLISH LAW OR OURS?

The Arbitration Court sat yesterday to hear a* claim for compensation mado by Thomas John Owen, ship's trimtnor, against the Shaw, Savill, and Albion Company, shipowners. His Honour Mr. Justice Sim presided, and there wero associated with, him oil the Bench Messrs. J, A. M'Cullough (employees' assessor) and W. Scott (employers' assessor). Mr. P. J. O'Regan appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr, M, Myers for tho defendant company. 3n his address to tho Court, Mr. O'Regan stated that Owen was a. coaltrimmer on the steamer Matatua. While the vessel was anchored off Gisborno on April 18 he sustained an injury, by accident, as a result of which he lost tho lingers of both hands, only the thumbs remaining. He was walking on the deck towards the stokehold when ho slipped on gome loose straw. Whilo falling ho grasped tho leading-lino attached to the winch-rope, and, at the moment ho did bo, the winch was 6et in motion, and Owen's left hand was drawn into tho block, \ He tried to savo himself by using hia other hand, the result being that both bands were drawn into tho block, and so badly lacerated that the fingers had to be amputated. Owen was taken ashore onu placed in the Gisborne Hospital, wh«ra no remained for thirteen weeks. Ihe English Workmen's Compensation Act provided that compensation should bo payable in respect of any accident happening on board a British ship (meaning a ship registered and owned in the United Kingdom) wherever that ship came from. Section 11 of tho New Zealand Act of 1908 contained a similar provision with, respect to a New Zealand ship, but it also applied to every accident in how Zealand, including any accident happening within territorial waters. He contended that under the circumstances Owen had the choice of two remedies —ho might return to England and claim compensv tion under the English Act, or he could take his remedy under the New Zealand Act. As to the compensation, counsel pointed out that tlio Court had always al lowed 10s. a week as the cost of maintaining a seaman on board a vessel in New Zealand. Owen's wages were £i 10s. per month, and he was entitled to a compemeatioa payment of .£1 per week. Already 18$ weeks had elapsed since the ao cideit, and 288 weeks had fitill to go before the period of liability would be ex hausted. He therefore submitted that Owen was entitled to a lump sum ol j £268 ss. Gd., with J3l medical expenses Against this the omployer was entitled to the cost of plaintiff's maintenance in the hospital, J3lB is. For the defendant company Mr. Myers contended that tho case was one for th& English Courts, and that the Now Ztar, land Court could Hot deal with't. _As tho contract of service was entered into in Eigland, the claim should have been 'made nnder the English Act. Furthermore, the acoident aid not arise out of employmont, and there/ore no compensation was payable. The claimant Owen gave evidence to tnn effect that atthe time he fell was walking to the stokehold to get soino clothing which he had placed on a boiler to dry. It was. customary for all stokehold hands ,to dry their clothing on the boilers, and 'they were nerer forbidden to do it; in fact, no other means w«« provided. His wagss were J% lOi. (with 'keep') per month. . To Mr. Myers: He was not fishing at tho time of the accident. After hearing considerable argument by counsel, the Court reserved its decision. POWER-HOUSEWORK. THE FIREMAN & THE AIR-BLOCK. Recently the Labour Department sued the Wellington City Corporation in the Magistrate's Court for alleged breach of award, which was eaid to nave consisted in employing one Tomlinson, a fireman, at the tramway power-house, to do oertain repairing work, to wit, the shifting of an air-block in connection with the furnace. The magistrate held" that tins was repairing work, for which the rate of wages stipulated was Is. Id. per hour, whereas Tomlinson was paid only Is. Sd. par hour. He, therefore, found against the corporation. The Department also prosecuted the oorporatiorf tor not employing a trimmer on Sunday mornings, and/ though" counsel for tho corporation contended that when the award was made It was not contemplated that a trimmer should be put on on Sundays, tho magistrate held that the award had been broken.. Against both these decisions the corporation now appealed. Mr. J. O'Shea nppoared for the appellants, and Mr. A. W. Blair for the Labour Department. After counsel had addressed the Court as to the law .bearing on the subject, his Honour stated that decision would bo reserved.