ARBITRATION COURT.

Hokitika Guardian, 22 November 1923, Page 1

ARBITRATION COURT.

WESTPORT, Nov. 21. At a sitting of the Arbitration Court before Judge Fraser and Messrs Scott and Hunter, Assessors, the following eases were dealt with : A SETTLEMENT. Barnett (Mr O’Regan) v. Westport Stockton Coal Coy. (Mr Cottrell), claim for a. lump sum in respect of injuries for an injured shoulder. Mr O'Regan stated a settlement had been reached. Defendant had agreed to pay ,0125 in addition to the £l5O already paid. Judgment was entered accordingly without costs. CRIB TIME ACCIDENT. William Bartholomew, of Stockton, coal miner, v. the Westport Stockton Coal Company, Ltd., claim in ves]>ect of an injury by accident alleged to be arising out of and in the course ol his employment in consequence whereof he was totally disabled until loth June, 1023. Mr O'Regan appeared for complainant and Mr Cottrell for defendant.

Mr O’Regan said the extent of the injuries was admitted. It was a schedule case pure and simple after the court had decided liability. Plaintiff, a trucker, was having crib in a manhole on the 7th March last. While doing so ho noticed something bright and glittering lying on the brattice, lie picked it up and was proceeding to examine it, when one of his mates asked what, it was. Tie replied, ’"‘Oh, 1 think it is a dead detonator.” He had hardly spoken when the detonator ex plotted, inflicting injuries as set out in the claim. There was also a question of overtime. Lengthy evidence was given and Council addressed the Court. After a short adjournment, when the Court resumed, llis Honor said the accident occurred during crib hour. Ordinarily, a man is off duty, hut hcmay bring himself hack into employment, as in the ease where he gr.oi after a horse that is running invar. As Mr O’Regan stated, under the Coal Mines Act, a man was deemed to he employed from hank to hank. Then l was no need to decide the case on this point. His Honor reviewed the circumstances and said plaintiff saw the detonator, realised Unit it was a detonator, but thought it was a dead one. it was much hotter to go on the principle, lor all practical purposes, tlial there was no such thing as a dead detonator. According to the mine manager, any employee seeing a detonator lying about in the mine, should pick it up. It was his duty to pick up a potential danger and hand it over to the deputy or some other, responsible person. If he thought it was a detonator, he should not. leave it lying about, possibly to he kicked or trod on by a horse, with dangerous consequences. In the matter of examining the detonator, the Court thought that if plaintiff' was examining it by pricking it with a pin. or a pencil, or a nail, he would not be entitled to compensation, as that would lie an unnecessary and unreasonable tiling lor him to do. even if lie thought il a dead one, as those things had a habit of coming to life. If the Court came to the conclusion that he was turning the heat on it. monkeying with the detonator, to see if it would act. he was doing exactly the same as one using a pin or nail, and would not he entitled to compensation. Mr Fletcher had told the (, 111,-t about a little blue flame at the tin mote void light Ihe plaintiff, a young man. was evidently not applying the limit, Iml holding the lamp tin to examine the detonator; In get the light into it. not to get the heat into it. The Court had come t" ,|,e conclusion that this was a question

f ;l et. The young man was merely living lo examine the detonator by (he light of ihe lamp, merely examining it. not exnerimenliiig. It was oil ah fours with the case eiieil in which Jones was sweeping out. a room and picked up a detonator. He tapped it to gel some dust oiii of it and tlw detonator exploded, injuring him. He was allowed compensation. This lad did practically the same thing, lie did a very natural tiling. This is wind the Cuuri of Appeal, in the ease cited. ~i ~n. It was a must natural thing for young man to pick up the doienaio'r and look iuio it. This oi-rtir-in the gloom of the mine. If it bad been ill the daylight, the accident would never have happened. for he wen 1-d have examined it in the sun’s light. The Court had come to the conclusion. that plaintiff' was doing a perfect lv reasonable thing. They did not know how the detonator got there. T||,. V bad no reason Lo assume that plaintiff' took il into the mine himself, it was only right to take it and examine the detonator, and lo hand it over In ihe deputy or some other responsible official. Had he put it ill his pocket to earrv it away and it exploded, dining damage, be could not have claimed compensation. The Court thought lbo ease was one in which compensation should he awarded and gave its judgment accordingly, the coinpen.'jiti<>ll to be according to schedule, with coits IT (is and witnesses expenses. Compensation amounted to about 2150 oil wages scale, as set out in the claim, with overtime also to he taken into consideration, this to he arrived at by agreement between the parties.