WORKERS' INJURIES

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 81, 2 October 1931, Page 5

WORKERS' INJURIES

THE EFFECTIVE CAUSE

COMPENSATION QUESTION

HAWKES BAY EARTHQUAKE

Iv elaborating the three submissions he had made in the morning, Mr, P. J. O'Eegan, in the Court of Appeal yesterday afternoon, as counsel for three of four defendants in the test cases ari»ing from the Hawkes Bay earthquake on 3rd February, which are before- the Court for determination of an important question of law, strongly- contended that in view of decisions in a* number of' cases to which he had referred, 'the conclusion was irresistible that the present cases came within the Workers' Compensation Act, 1922. The question the Court is asked to decide is\whether or not the injuries by accident suffered by four men, of whom two were.killed, in. the course of their work arose/out • of their employment. ::. As was stated when legal argument was opened on Wednesday morning, there is ;no record of any cases with strictly parallel circumstances having, been decided by Courts'in the Empire. The four cases,- which 'were consolidated, are of great importance to workers and to insurance companies. The five Judges on the Bench—the Chief Justice (Sir Michael,Myers), Mr, Justice Seed, Mr. Justice Adams, Mr. Justice Ostler, and Mr. Justice Smitk-^ were engaged the whole of yesterday ia hearing further legal argument. Today argument was concluded, and the Court reserved its .decision. Mr. H. P. Biclflnond and Mri A. EC* Johnstone, of Auckland, who appeared for Thomas Borthwick and Sons (Aiisi tralasia), Ltd., plaintiffs in two;of th« cases; Mr. H. F. O'Leary_ for Nelson* (New Zealand), Ltd., plaintiffs in one case; and Mr. P. B. Cooke for Thomas James Brennan and Charlie Fentou Manning, proprietors of the Clarendon Hotel, Napier, also plaintiffs in one case; Mr. P. J. O'Began had with him Mr. C O'Began, ,and Mr. M. F. Luckie, appeared for the fourth defendant. Mr. O'Began, sen., submitted that, thai effective cause of the injuries or deaths was not the earthquake, but the falling buildings and debris, and claimed that the "accidents" which befell the foui; workers arope out of their employment* "NOT A COMMON RISK." ' Mr. Luckie contended that the risk of injury or death was not common to the whole of the community. The case, of his client was clearly, he. "submitted, one of locality risk. Risk of injury; or death did not depend upon the .earth* quake alone, but upon the earthquake plus brick and concrete buildings. It was common knowledge that in Napier; personal injuries Resulted invariably from brick, and concrete buildings and falling masonry^- and where that' class of building was most frequent the mr juries were most frequent; Mr. Luckie contended that, the earthquake, alone killed no one; it was the conjunction of conditions, local in every instance* and due to special circumstances, that brought about all the accidents. .At the time of the earthquake, he'claimed that nine-tenths of the Napier streets were walked with impunity. ■ ■ .' Beplying to Mr. Justice Smith, Mr* Luckie said he did not agree that.the, risk run was general. . . .. ' '.'■.' Mr. Luckie concluded his argument to-day, and after Mr. Eichmond-.- haA replied briefly, the Chief Jnstiee..iatimated that the Court would take time to consider its decision.