Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

NO COMPENSATION

FOR INJURED WORKERS. COURT OF APPEAL’S DECISION. (By Telegraph—-Per Press Association} WELLINGTON, December 16 Tile Court of Appeal this morning: delivered its judgment in the important earthquake case, Borthwick and Sons Ltd., and others v. Ryan and others (heard on September 30.) The Chief Justice, in giving his judgment in favour of plaintiff employers, said in his opinion, on the lacts actually before the. Court, the accidents which caused ; the injuries did not arise out of employment, on the ground that the injuries wero caused by a general catastrophe, and that all persons within the area affected by the earthquake were exposed to the same risk. The danger was common to all, and the facts before the court did not show any special exposure to risk by injured workers, due to incidents of their employment. The position woul<] be different if workers by reason of the incidents of their employment were exposed to risk of injuries greater than those to ■ which th© public generally were subject, and injury actually suffered was caused or accentuated by such incidents. The fact that buildings ...were wholly and partly destroyed could not be regarded, perforce, as proof of defective construction.

Justices Ostler, Adnilis, and Smith delivered judgments concurring with the Chief Justice. . - ■ Justice Reid arrived at satnewliat different conclusions, holding, the fact that the contributing cause of injuries was that the earthquake did not of itself prevent the injured workers from receiving compensation. Workers' were entitled if they could.show the building where they were working, or required to he, was defectively constructed, to claim compensation. He held in addition, on the fact's- before the Court, that Prendergasf, was..entitled to compensation

In accordance with the judgments on. the majority, the answer ■ of the Court to the question before it, vyas that in each case on the facts stated, the accident did not arise out of the course of employment. ;

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/HOG19311217.2.46

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Hokitika Guardian, 17 December 1931, Page 5

Word count
Tapeke kupu
316

NO COMPENSATION Hokitika Guardian, 17 December 1931, Page 5

NO COMPENSATION Hokitika Guardian, 17 December 1931, Page 5

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert