MINE ACCIDENT

Evening Post, Volume CXVII, Issue 144, 20 June 1934, Page 11

MINE ACCIDENT

atI<MT-TO-DAMAGES

LIMITATION OF £1000

INJURIES. TO MINER

The sum of £500 is at stake Jn a case on appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Ostler-which'is before tho -Full Court today. It raises tho important question of whether tho effect of section 67 (3) of the Workers' Compensation Act, 1922, is to amend section 293 of the Mining Act, 192 G. thereby limiting tho amount of damages recoverable as for the negligence' of a fellow-ser-vant to £1000. The appellant is John Hislop Gordon, quartz miner, Waihi, and the respondent .the. Waihi Gold Mining Co., Ltd. : . On tho Bench are tho Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers), Mr. Justice Reed, and Mr-. Justice. Johnston. Mr. P. J. O'Segan,- Wellington,' appears for the appellant, and Mr. H. P. Richmond -and Mr: iVL.'D. West, both of Auckland,-, for tho respondent. HISTORY OF CASE. I Tracing the history of the case, Mr. O'Regan said that, on July 26 last year an.extraordinary accident happened in the AVaihi Company's mine. • A cage containing thirteen men was being lowered in the usual way when it suddenly got out of control. Luckily, before the cage touched the bottom of the shaft, i.some mechanism at the side of the cage I expanded, jamming the" cage in the shaft and stopping it. Had the cage gone to-the bottom the thirteen men would .have been . killed. As it was, they were-all more or less injured, the majority comparatively slightly, but several)- including- Gordon,- rather severely. The only competent tribunal in which to sue : for damages was the AVarden's Court. Accordingly proceedings were taken in "that" Court at Waihi, and all'tho cases had been disposed of except two, of--which, one- was Gordon's.. :.In: the: eleven, cases disposed at}, the amount..p£, damages- recp.yerfed in each i.had:-beoir j -less than £.1)000, sonic:*onsidftr.ab.ly-.lQss. ',■ - ■.'■. '. '. :

.._ £1500 AWARDED. ■•, Gordon's, ease,. Mr. o'Regan' continued, came.: before . th.c Warden's Court on February..'. 6 ,laslj ; .' and ' the Warden, Mr. Pl.att, and his assessors awarded £1500 damage.s. ' There was! a. special provision in .Mining Acts to the effect that.upon.an accident "happening/in or about a mine it raised the presumption of negligence against the owner. In this.case,'af.ter'making an inspection, he was satisfied that the ac-1 cident was not; duo.to any' defect in the machinery;'' Gordon's claim for damages .was founded on an allegation of negligence against the eriginc-driyer —nogligeneo on tho part of a fellojvservant. When the Court awarde'd'Gordon £1500 damages, Mr.'.Richmond raised tho question whether it was competent, for Gordon'to recover' more than £1000, because of the provisions of the Workers''"Compensation "Act limiting the amount; recoverable to £1000 in 'non-fatal accident - cases where the claim was founded ou a fellow-servant's negligence* After argument had been, subiuited; by counsel in writing, the question was referred to the Supreme Court for an opinion. 'It came before- Mr. Justice Ostler at Auckland' on March 21, and his Honour decided that the limitation applied. It was their arranged- to have tho case referred to the Full Court. Mr. O'Began said that the question at .issue was one purely/.of law. He ■proceeded", to"' de'aT with, the history of tho legislation, beginning . with the Fatal Accidents Act, 1546. • "MANDATORY. PROVISION." ■ It was contended by Mr. Richmond that what was dono "by section 295 of the Mining Act-was actually to interpret,'- as part 'of ?the Act, the Workers Compensation Act." The only meaning that could be given to sub-section 3 of section 295 was that it was mandatory, that'it meant that such' compensation —that was. compensation under/section 295—-must lie recoverable having regard to such-.provisions of the- two statutes as were "applicable,: :

(proceeding.)