CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION.

Gisborne Times, Volume VII, Issue 326, 29 January 1902, Page 1

CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION.

At tlie Arbitration Court, Auckland, His Honor Mr Justice Cooper, gave judgment in the case of Phinix v. Brown and Geddes, claim under the Workers’ Compensation for Accidents Act 1900, for compensation for injuries sustained by plaintiff while in the employment of respondents. The claimant claimed £IOO for compensation for injuries sustained while working at a lollie-cutting machine at respondents factory at Parnell, by which she lost three fingers of her right hand. The defence was that the accident was directly attributable to the serious end wilful misconduct of the claimant. After reviewing the facts of the case

the Court pointed out that it had been definitely laid down in a number of cases decided by the Court of Appeal in England upon the English Act ,'l) that the burden of proving serious and wilful misconduct is on the employer ; (2) that is, “ serious and wilful misconduct ” is a question of fact, and is dependent on the circumstances of each particular case ; and (3) that no legal' definition of what does or does not constitute “ serious and wil-.'

fill misconduct ” can be given. In the present case the respondents had asserted that the claimant hgd been frequently warned not to place ner finters beneath the guard and to be cureiul of the knife, and that on the morning of the accident she had been expressly warned not to do so, and that notwithstanding such warnings, and while skylarking, she defiantly and recklessly disobeyed orders. The Court were of opinion that the evidence fell far short of this. There was no proof that the girl was “ skylarking ” There was, in their opinion no sufficient proof that the girl had I eon frequently warned, and the evidence in support of this was of the vaguest description. The Court considered that the claimant, on the impulse of the moment, finding that the machine was stopped, placed her fingers under the guard for tre pm pose i.t removing confectionery which she bcTeved to he there. The sudden starting of the machine was the cJii ict rau.se of the accident, and though the conduct’of the claimant whs in the siMct sense of the term neg'numt, it foil far short of serious and wilful misconduct, and the respon 'cuts had therefore failed to satisfy them that inv. injury was “ directly attributable to the serious and wilful misconduct of the claimant.” The Court awarded the claimant the sum of do per week according to the schedule of the Act. U ! commence from September full 1901, and to continue during tap partu.i ' iiicapacity of the claimant until

such payments are ended, diminished, increased, or redeemed in accordance

w : ih the provisions of the Act. The Court thought that the offer made by tlw respondents to take the rhimant lack into their employment a' fis rer ■vetk was a fair one, and should have Ikcii accepted. The demand >cr an immediate money payment of ~110 compensation was unreasonable, and ought not to have been made. The Court thought that only nominal costs should be allowed, and they assessed these at £2 18s.