LOSS OF A HAND.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2373, 14 December 1908, Page 5

LOSS OF A HAND.

A COMPENSATION CLAIM. A GISBORNE CASE. The Arbitration Court recently delivered judgment at Auckland in the Gisborne compensation case, Robert Burnett v. Oxenham pnd Buty, bridemakers. Claimant, was employed in respondent’s brickworks at Kaiti, near Gisborne, and was engaged in the work of feeding a pug-mill with clay. A stone got into the Tollers of the mill, and claimant attempted to remove it. While 'doing this his Tight hand was caught and crushed by the rollers, and had to be amputated at the wrist. It was admitted that it was part of claimant’s duty to remove any stone that got into the rollers. The accident by which claimant was injured arose therefore out of, and in the course of, his employment, and the onl’.y question in the case was whether 'he was guilty of serious and wilful misconduct. From tho evidence the Court concluded that the claimant must have attempted to remove the stone while the rollers were in -motion.

“The question then arises,” the judgment proceeded, “whether this amounts to serious and wilful misconduct. Claimant had been working onily ten day» in the brickworks when the'accident happened. He had had, apparently, no previous experience in connection with machinery, and when -lie started to work at the brickworks he was shown the proper way to remove stones from the rollers. He had on occasions before the accident stopped the mill in order to remove stones and he knew that this was the proper course to adopt. It was not made dear, however, to the claimant that lie was forbidden explicitly to attempt to remove the stones from Hie rollers while they were in motion. His conduct, in the circumstances, was not due to disregard of any command which had been laid on him but wa-s the thoughtloss act of a man who did not appreciate the danger of interfering with machinery while it was in motion. That clearly does not amount to serious mid wilful miseoduct. We hold, therefore, that the claimant is entitled to compensation. Compensation was fixed -at .£250, and the respondents were ordered to pay that sum to the Public Trustee to be invested for claimant. Costs were allowed claimant.