COMPENSATION FOR INJURIES

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2780, 26 May 1916, Page 3

COMPENSATION FOR INJURIES

■: ft DAMAGES REDUCED. Ti.^ r c. us '' ce Denniston's judgment In the supreme Court case, Joseph Kayo v the Westport Harbour Board, was delivered to counsel by the Registrar at Welimgton yesterday afternoon. The rase was heard at Nelson. Tlie plaintiff was a toolsharpener and blacksmith employed in a tunnel in course of construction, at the board s works, Cape Foulwind, and while (hero suffered serious and permanent injuries through a quantity, of rock falling from the roof of the tunnel, the working conditions of the tunnel being governed by the Stone Quarries Act of 1910. It was alleged that the tunnel had not been adequately protected for workmen, and that the board was responsible for not having the tunnel property safeguarded.

A 1 J!l e J"; ar »>g the jury awarded the plaintiff, ,£<so damages.- >. It was admitted that the. negligence aliened if it existed, was' that of Hamcs, and tnnt Hames' was a fellow-servant of the_ plaintiff, and therefore under the nroof the Workers' Compensation 'Act, TO, and its Amendment, 1311, and the Stone Quarries Act, 1310; tlio plaintiff could not recover. Thevfiret-named Act provides that "no: servant shall be entitled to recover 1 from his ■ employer in an action brought under : this Act' in respect of the negligence of a fellow-servant a larger sum by way of .damages for anv one cause of: action than five;.hundred pounds, .'. . , .

The plaintiff- moved for' judgment for amount, <£"50, and the defendant for 1 new .,' :nn '> °, r in the alternative to re■luce Hie verdict to , ,£SOO. The only ground for tlio motion for a' now trial I- i To . nlic,: for ,£750 .it could not be reduced and' that the only remedy was a Mr trial. ; "I held," writes ms Honour, as is -I think obvious that the recovery' referred to in the section rw C °- V 7 y K *]'£' of the m? i' a , ml " ot V thfi verdict of the jurv. the only miestioii, therefore, now is: Is -i- e nns ! ir to recover morp than AnOO? He can be so entitled only if the effect of the Stone Quarries Act 1910 is to remove the responsibility for the f • 7-2 ? c ' " le . ca " sf! °f. injury to the ■ P i "v£* {t om f: ' le f®How-servant of the board"' lllrC ° t torWeasor » to die

.After ci tins numbers of cases and renewing and dinting from judgments.-Mr. Jnsticn Bemnston concluded: '-'l tliiiik that Hie specific not .of omission proved t - ose J" 111 " 0 '- '>V ■»>>" reasonable construction, be liekl to be even prima fncie. evidence 'of neelect. either actual' or constructive, on the nart of flic defendant board, and that therefore the doctrine ]0 f cnnmiAii employment aoplies. J,ie plaintiff will Jiavo judgment for J2SPO Via in I. , defendant was allowed i- V s *' ml wi ' s °. f '"otion to reduce the ; e "i ,c t* r Tl,e *"'icitors for the Plaintiff jeie Meisrs. O.Re»an and Dickson, and for the defendant Mr. C. H. 'l'roadwill.