COMPENSATION CASE

Hokitika Guardian, 17 October 1924, Page 4

COMPENSATION CASE

A I-1 HEM AN'S DEATH. A l (ELAN lb October |.T. .lodgment lias been tiled by the Com! ol A l but al mu in the ehiint ter loinpcn .mi.,,, I V Ale " Ma "d !• ;'• 1 !'e. V ‘dev o| .1 Ml.- . I '.mil le : ' elie. ill pill; o| ' rill | ,-1 1, ]e 11 1 o| I lie I let imp..ill M Itlll-'l I I I'llc Itrigade, v.ho was jiecidentall.' billed at Devnnpoil on April 1 • 11 1 .. 1021 bv being thrown from a motor lire engine, wliiiii eollideil with a lelegrap! | ile while being driven to the scent of an alarm of lire.

The Com t hold that diseased was 1 worker within the ineauiup of the Act. and was employed hy the dclcmlant Corporation under a contract ol service. The Court declined that plaintiff ami her two daiiphtcrs were partial dependents of (Iccou.s's 1. The amount <1 compensation payable was fixed at £IOO. apportioned as lollows:--Ti. plaint ill'. L'2'JS I Is Id. to each dauphtei £BS lls 1.l

As regards the question whether certain insurance money should he set off against the amount of compensation to lie awarded, the Court cited Section I f (I) of the Workers' Compensation Act, ]o'jn. which set forth that there slm’iid lie no abatement of the amount for which tin* employer or his insurer was liable by reason of the fact that money had accrued to the claimant in respect of any life or accident, insurance policy effected hy himself or by any person other than the employer. The Corporation paid premiums on two policies, and did so as the direct, employer of deceased. A total of £250 'was payable under the policies. (Section I I (1) of the Act did not apply, and so much of the sum of L'llAO as was payable to each dependent under the deceased's intestacy must acconliiu'ly In- deducted from her share of the compensation money. Plaintiff was awarded £.ll 10s funeral expenses and .CIO IDs co~»ts, with witnesses' expenses.