COMPENSATION CLAIM

Hokitika Guardian, 18 October 1928, Page 1

COMPENSATION CLAIM

LOSS OF AN EYE

FARM ERB WHO .HELPED EACH OTTI ER.

DUNEDIN, Oct. 10. An interesting point was involved in a claim for compensation that came before Mr Justice Frazer in the Arbitration Court this morning, when a dispute between Gebrge Alexander (‘alder and Robert Douglas, plaintiff and defendant respectively in the action, was heard. The parties were neighbouring farmers in the Ardgovvan district, near Oamaru. While engaged in working on the defendant’s farm, the plaintiff met with an accident which resulted in the loss of an eye, a fid the point at issue was whether the plaintiff was actually employed by the defendant, or merely assisting him on a co-operative basis. The defendant admitted the facts of the'case, hut denied that the plaintiff was working for him at the time of the accident. They were working purely on a co-operative basis as many neighbouring fanners: did. The defendant also denied that the plaintiff had any “average weekly earnings” for the purposes of the 'Workers’ Compensation Act. The defendant admitted making no payments as compensation, because lie claimed that he was not liable for the accident. His Honour stated that in this, case two' neighbouring farmers had a system bv> which one worked for the other as required. This was ((idle reasonable, for it, was far more satisfying to rely on a neighbour or friend than to pick up someone off the road to do the work, ft seemed clear That the arrangement in this case, was on a definite money basis, and that the power of controlling the work was present all the time, even though the necessity for exercising it never arose. On the facts it seemed impossible to get away from the conclusion that in doing this work one was the servant of the other.

Judgment was entered for the plaintiff for a total sum of £461 Os 7d, with costs CIO 10s, and witnesses expenses £5 10s. '