’QUAKE ECHO

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 3, Issue 723, 26 December 1933, Page 3

’QUAKE ECHO

OOMiPENSATION CLAIM FOR MAN KILLED ON PAYEMENT. A NAPIER HEARING.

Hastings, Monday. The widow of a bartender wh'o was killed outside the old Mjasonic Hotel, Napier, during the 1931 earthquake proceeded against New Masonic, Ltd., in the Arbitration Court, at Napier, y^terday afternoon. Plaintiff, Mary E^ans, said that her husband, David Evans, a bartender, was killed in the cdllapse of a portion of the hotel, and shfe claimed £1000 compensation, as well as funeral and other expenses. TKe court reserved ist decision. iWCrs. Evans declared in her state!ment of claim that she and her three children were totally dependent upon the deceased at the time of his death. IMr. C. W. -Nash appeared for the plaintiff and Messrs. H. F. O'Leary and M. R. Grant for the defendant company. iTh'e sta.tement of defenc.e related a general denial that (Evans was killed while he was employed by the hotel company. Albert Thomas Griffin said that at the t:me of the earthquake he was in the private bar of the Masonic Hotel. Evans was behind the counter. For about a second or so aftei the earthquake those in the bar remained where they were, but the licensee called out: "Nothing could stand that. Outside boys!" Everyone rushed out. Evans followed witness, and seemed to trip just as he emerged from the doorway. Debris was falling and everyone was anxiotis to get out of the way. Evans and witness were jammed fogether in the doorway, and when they were separauid the last thing he saw of Evans was his stumbling on to the pavement. Witness himself was struck by a jagged piece of falling masonry. Mr. O'Leary said he felt that what was called "pavement cases" were not eovered by the Privy Council decisions. The statem,snt of facts in this case had been agreed upon, but the evidence given by Griffin was a surprlse to counsel — (his statement that he and the others were ordered out iby the licensee. If that were so, no doubt Evans was on the street in the course • of his employmnt. It would be conceded that if this were so there could be no argument. Where it could be proved that a plaintiff had voluntarily broken the course of his employment and gone out into the street, a different principle arose. J JLegal argument ensued upon the formal point of when an employee 1 ceased to follow the course of his employment, and whether, at the time of his departure from the hotel, Evans j had broken the relationship of master and servant. i (His Honour said the court would take time for consideration of the evidence.