COURT OF APPEAL

Hokitika Guardian, 1 October 1931, Page 6

COURT OF APPEAL

PKOGKESS OF ABGUMENT. (By Telegraph—Per Press Association) WELLINGTON, October 1. Continuing argument Before" the Court of Appeal in the case of Borthwick and C., v. Ryan, Mr A. H. Johnstone said no one ever contemplated and least of all the framers of the Workers Compensation Act tnat an employer should be held liable for injuries caused to an employee by earthquakes of such intensity as the Hawkes Bay earthquake. For the purposes of liability under the Statute it is necessary to find an efficient cause of injury and it was his submission in this case that efficient cause was the earthquake.

Mr Allory in support, said lie adopted the arguments of counsel who preceded him. In addition he submitted it could not be maintained that tiecause these buildings collapsed they were inherently dangerous. In the large earthquake area of Hawkes Bay, every spot was equally dangerous. Consequently there was no locality risk. Prendergast’s case was not different to the others and his occupation at the time of the earthquake was not unusually dangerous.

Mr Cooke in further support, said that the previous legal authority had yio application to disaster such as the Hawkes Bay earthquake, which overtakes a whole community and does not confine its operations to the particular spot.