APPEAL COURT

Hokitika Guardian, 1 October 1931, Page 5

APPEAL COURT

ARCUMENT FOR PLAINTIFFS.

(By Telegraph—Per Press Association)

WELLINGTON, September 30,

In the Borthwick and Co. v. Ryan Appeal Court case, Mr Richmond opening for the plantiffs, discussed general conditions that were common to all the plaintiffs. He admitted that the defendants came within the definition of “Worker ’ in the Workers’ Compensation Act, 1922, and also that when injured, they were acting in the course of their employment. He contended, however, that their injuries did not arise out cf, or in the course of their employment, and that, therefore the plaintiff's were not liable to pay them compensation. Tliei.e cases were unique in the whole legai history of the British Empire. They were of the greatest importance, he said, to the insurance companies both in New Zealand and elsewhere. He submitted that an accident to a worker did not arise out of bis employment un’ess the accident were due to a risk that was necessarily inherent in the nature of the employment, and constituting one of its terms. Where there was a risk of death'or injury by natuai'J, causes which was shared by all of the community, whether in or out of employment, that risk was not a term of employmen, nor inherent in it. The sole cause of the accident was the earthquake. The fact of a worker being injured by. a building collapsing through an earthquake still left the earthquake the approximate cause of the accident. If the Court did not accept the view that the only cause to be considered was the earthquake then he submitted that the collapse of buildings was so general ns to be a risk to which everyone fn buildings and in town streets was exposed, and was not confined to workers. It could not be maintained that because buildings collapsed these buildings were in .hcrently dangerous. The danger was not attached to the buildings but it came from the earthquake.

Mr A. H. Johnstone, who appeared in support of plaintiffs, said he adopted in full the argument of Mr Richmond, and merely wished to amplify it in certain respects. He submitted (L) That a claimant- under the Workers’ Compensation Act, 1922, must establish some casual relation between employment and injury by accident. (2) That in the circumstances of the case before the Court the cause of injury by accident was tbe earthquake. CVt That if the above views were correct, then the accident did not arise out of employment, but was a consequence of natural forces to which all persons throughout a wide area, whether employed or- unemployed, were equally subject.