COMPENSATION FOR ACCIDENT.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXII, Issue 8933, 25 September 1907, Page 2

COMPENSATION FOR ACCIDENT.

Claim for £l5O. The Judgment of Mr R. L. Stanford, S.M.' (sitting as an Arbitration Court), was delivered at Marton Court to-day in tho Fahey v. Brown case, recently heard at Marton, as follows: —

Tho defendant admits Iris liability to pay compensation, and has paid into Court the sum of £65 in satisfaction of such liability, hut considers the plaintiff’s claim of £l5O is excessive. I am asked to determine what is a proper sum to he paid in full satisfaction of the claim under the following circumstances: Plaintiff was a qualified blacksmith by trade, hut about 18 months a s o took to the work of a carpenter’s labourer, receiving Os per day as wages. While working in defendant’s factory on July Bth, 1007, at a surface plamug machine, his left hand was mutilated by tho knife of the machine, and two fingers (the ring and little fingers) of his left hand had to bo amputated. Defendant had employed plaintiff again at a wage of 7s per diem. Plaintiffs ‘• expectation of life’’ at 26 years is 37 years according to tho Carlisle tables. The question is to what extent is plaintiff’s wage earning power reduced by the permanent partial disbleraent which he has suffered. No doubt plaintiff is’still able to. bo a useful man and earn wages. The following questions have to be considered : (1) Expectations of life at 26; (2) the growing disposition to scrutinise application for employment with reference to the extra liability of the applicant to risks of accident; (3) tho class of work which plaintiff is unable to undertake. There is at tho present timojscarcity of labour in the colony, and employment is readily to bo found, but during tne next' 87 years, it is at least probable that there will again occur periods when there jwill be a glut of labour, when only the most capable mou will flud their services in urgent demand. It is not too much to say that during such periods, having regard to tho plaintiff’s maimed hand, lie will be the first man dismissed and the last employed. Tho _ plaintiff is mcapacitated altogether as a blacksmith, at which trade bo is a qualified band, and as a labourer he must inevitably suffer in tiro competition of life by the want of two fingers. Judge Chapman said in a somewhat similar case, “There was some difficulty in arriving at the amount by which his future earning power might bo expected to be reduced. . . . The chief difficulty was to determine tho extent expressed in money to which the claimant’s wage earning power was impaired by reason of the condition of his thumb (Murray v. Rtlthbone Executors, 4, Arbitration Court Awards, page 6).” Taking the whole circumstances of this case into consideration, and calculating l the plaintiff’s expectation of life at 26 years of ago at 37 years, and tho impairment to his wage earning power at 2s 6d per week, I award plaintiff the sum of £l3O and all costs, amounting to £9 Bs.

Mr Collins appeared for plaintiff and Mr Bishop, instructed by the Norwich and Loudon Accident Assurance Association.