COMPENSATION AWARD

Hokitika Guardian, 17 June 1931, Page 3

COMPENSATION AWARD

UNUSUAL CASE. (By Telegraph—Per Press Association) NELSON, June 16. . An interesting point was raised when Robert iiiacli Rae .claimed compensation from the Ongkaka Iron and 6teel Company (in liquidation), for an injury to Ins foot, sustained by a fall in the shower room.

]u giving judgment for the plaintiff for £i'2 and costs, Mr Justice,, Frazer said that the case was niter-, esting, and it involved two principles in compensation law. One was that persons who are required to work in or about certain premises, were covered under locality risk. A sailor was so covered for the whole 24 hours of each day. The circumstances in the Unekaka case appeared to be similar to those of a sailor being injured on a ship, or a domestic servant, who was required to live on the premises. The other principle was a distinction between privilege and duty. It had been laid down that a worker was not protected by the Act, it exercising a privilege, but he was, if doing a, duty. His Honour then referred to the locality principle in the case of a sailor, who fell down a manhole while washing his clothes. The reason that lie. was given compensation was that he had to live on tne ship, and there was an undisclosed peril,, the (man-hole), into which he fell. The same thing would apply in the case of a hotel servant slipping and injuring herself while returning from the laundry on the premises with her own clothes. There was a. ridiculous example, hut one which emphasised the point in the present case. If the maid had swallowed the soap, however, the employer would not then have been liable, as it would hjive been a personal matter, similarly, ii a domstie servant were to get a lish

bone in her throat, her employer would not be liable. However, in the case before the Court, the employee wa.» living in conditions similar to those oi a sailor on. a ship, and the accident arose from the locality where the employee had to he. There was a slippery concrete floor in the shower room. It was made slippery by the use of /soap, and in the room was an iron partition. The case was analogous to that on a ship and .so the worker would he entitled to compensation. Under the locality risk for the Act to apply; an employee must he doing his duty, Mind not exercising a privilege.

Evidence was given by the manager the plaintiff and the Union Secretary 'fhat.i]owing to the prevalence of septic'wounds among the' men, an instruction had been issued that the men should'hath, and a "natural interpretation had 'been given to the instruction which seemed to go generally understood. It was'the custom of the men to use -the hours after work, and it would be impossible to sav that it ,w,a§ not a reasonable extension of his employment time, apart from locality. It' seemed to Ire the duty of the men, under .the control of their cfnployment to cleanse themselves, after leaving off duty. The injury arose out of the worker doing what was his duty. . Judgment was given for the plaintiff for £42 10s; costs £lO 10s and witnesses expenses.