APPEAL COURT

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 4, 29 September 1917, Page 12

APPEAL COURT

A COMPENSATION CLAIM

INTERESTING CASE

A case of considerable interest in respect to u claim tor compensation for tiio death of a foster parent through injuries . received .came before ■ the' Appeal Court yesterday. On the bench were the Chief "Justice (Sir Eobert Stout), Air. Justice Dennistou, Mr. Justice Cooper, -Mr. Justice Chapman. N The appellants were the Union Steam Ship Company of New Zealand, Limited, for whom Sir John Findlay, with him llr. P. Levi appeared, and the respondent was Catherine Hobin, spinster, of Auckland, represented by Mr. P. J. U'ltegan. Respondent's father, John Eobin, died in. Auckland Hospital on April 18, 1!)17, as the result of injuries received on April 2, while assisting to discharge coal from the defendant company's s.s. Wanaka at Auckland. Eespondent was the adopted, daughter of John ltobm, who at the time ,-ot' his death was a widower. She sued t'6r damages, claiming' .£IOOO, alleging that the accident was due to the negligence of a fellow-servant, a iironuin. At common law damages are not recoverable for injuries or death due to the negligence of a fellow-servant, _ but they are under Section 02 of the- Workers' Compensation Act, 1903; tho amount recoverable, however, for injuries is limited to i'soo. Section 11 of the Workers' Compensation Amendment Act, 1011, further provides, that no.-servant-shall bo entitled to recover damages in excess of JESO0■ for injuries due to a.fellow-ser-vant's negligence. ." After the writ had bs'en issued, llierefcre, tho defendant company applied to have the statement. Of claim amended by reducing the amount claimed to .£SOO. Argument on tho point was heard before Mi. Justice Hoskiug at Auckland on July 31 last, and His Honour subsequently gave his reserved judgment at. Wellington, when he held that though the deceased himself, had he survived his injuries, could not have claimed more than A'soo, yet his daughter, never having boon n servant of the defendant, was not so limited, and he therefore dismissed, the summons with costs, from this decision tho defendant company appealed. • After hearing argument the Court reserved its decision. '