IS SUNSTROKE AN ACCIDENT?

Maoriland Worker, Volume 3, Issue 32, 8 March 1912, Page 2

IS SUNSTROKE AN ACCIDENT?

interesting Decisions.

Thr> f|HosH'>-) \* si|i).-,ti- u lt.-_i.n ,v,\--(lfnt V" \vn s ; ;t iiorcl [Ninit. winch ncr-u----picd tiio arbitrator, unilor tlic Workiiion's Coniiioiisation Art, at Preston (Kiitllaiul), w lion tli<> nl.um was hoard on bclmlf tit' Mni'sarot tlio widow of J. I*. 1 oarmaii in tlio oniploy of H. Watson, a hay •:<"(! straw dealer. Tlio rlpocasorl died as tlio re.su!b of sunstroke, sustainiw.l whilo at work. It was coiiU-.iwled tliat tlio osuiso of (leatli -.vas not aii ai-cident for .vliich

tjie employer w.is responsible. On the '.\K\iV-t Vittiut, it was argued oil behalf of tilt , widow that sunstroke was common Id all employments, and that danger was more or less present if a in.vi worked hard or it lie did not. Such cases are governed by *lio same principle as that which Ims boen made clear in. cases of frost-bile or heat apoplexy, to which a man is peculiarly exposod l>y the nature of his ■"■inployineiit. In every case the pa.rt i'-ular cjiviimstaiires must df'tcriiiiiit' whether sunstroke is to l«) deeifiicd t'Mi ao'ckltent arising out of (he man's work, and f<ir which the employer is liable under the Workmen's CVuiipensation Act. If in th<> employment there, is nothing peculiar and differentfrom that to which all workers arc alike exposed, then there is no a<*'ideiit ; but, if the workman was doing something in the course ol his employment which by leason, of his employment exposed him to peculiar danger, then the injury, as IpV frost-bite or heat, apoplexy, i.-. an accident. In tho ca.se lycfore the court the deceased was shown to have suffered by extreme, heat, involving uxw than the ordinary risk to which <-arter.s are exposed. Tlx , deceased's death was incurred in the course of his employment, and as sunstroke, is known to be brought on by undue- exposure to the sun's rays, it did not arise in the. ordinary course of natural causes, to which all men working in the sun are exposed. The judge,, following the decisions, awarde<l the applicant CI 7I l!is, being the aggregate ol thrco years' wages. The-fact that flic deceased had carried 72 heavy trusses of hay in an hour and twenty minutes from tho haystack to tho lorry, on a hot kuiiiiihm' day, exposed him to a daiiner that was not common, but peculiar to his particular employment at the moment. It was in justice an accident for which th,- employer was liable. In another case in tlio Court of Appeal th<* applicant was a ship's officer on board the appellants' ship, who, while superintending the loading of cargo in the heat of a West Indian sun, suffered after live hours' exposure one day an attack of sunstroke, ... which caused partial blindness. It .was argued that hi.s duties did not. expose, him to an exceptional risk.at his work, lljutthe Court of .Appeal held that ; anv |peeulia'- and exceptional exposure arising out of the man's woik was an accident for which Ins employers were liable. Europeans, in the course of nature, would not he exp )si d bi an India.n .sun H'or hours on the stiel deck of a shin, wji.hout suffering an exceptional risk, and it was this which produced the attack of sunstroke, which, though not unusual in tl>e tiopi-cs, was an accident to w-hicli a Kuropean is only exposed 'it the course of his peculiar, employment, for which t'iA sliiiiowners were responsible umler the Workman's Conmen.sajt'ion . Art,—. 'Mercantile G.izotto.." . j