WATERSIDER'S DEATH.

Taranaki Daily News, 22 October 1920, Page 5

WATERSIDER'S DEATH.

i ■ ■ • ! LONG LITIGATION INDEX*, ■'. .WIDOW AWARDED XfiOO. . / By Teiegnßb.—Press iMeolatien. ' Wellington, Last Night. The Court of Arbitration has lust de< liveral reserved judgment in the case of Elizabeth Emma lleadfqrd v. the N(hr' Zealand Shipping Company. Plaintiff, the widow of Walter Re»4» ford, had previously sued the owjun of a ship for damages, and had tained a verdict for £lsoo fa* the Su* preme Court at Aucktemi in February! last, but on further consideration J|?.' Justice Chapman non-suited plaintiff, and the case ultimately went to the Court of Appeal. That tribunal alio decided against plaintiff. Proceedings were then taken against the New Zealand Shipping Company under the Workers' Compensation Act. > The deceased was one of a gang of men employed on Ayrshire. At 'the time of the accident work w proceeding in No. 4 hold, access to which was usually obtained by a feed ladder from the main deck, But a ttUsM ber of workers preferred to descend tar the companion-way or staircase leadiu from the main deck to No. 6 sheltw deck, and then proceed along that deck; to a fixed ladder at No. 4. Readfoid: was last seen proceeding on board ay the companion-way after tea on the evening of February 7, but was not seen again until next morning, wh«n he was picked up unconscious on the bottom of No. 5 hold, and died some ten days afterwards without regaining consciousness. The defence was that deceased had not met his death by an accident arising out of his employment, but. by added risk, he having delib*r> ately refrained from using the fixed ladder from the main deck of No. 4 hold.

In the course of a lengthy judgment the Court now decided that the accident, though close to the border line, did arias out of his employment, Inasmuch as tjw men habitually used the companion-wafe and were' not forbidden by anyone In authority. In Palmer v, Harrof* Limited the Court holdß that there it an important distinction between an added risk and an increased risk. In this case the deceased may have been negligent and may have added to tin risks of his employment, but the a«ident happened while he wa» doing mouthing which was not forbidden, end winch had been done previously by himself and others. The fact that lie had worked on the same day at No. 5, and in which case the companion-way was quite permissible as a means of going below, and thatjiis coat was found tit No. 5, were also important, and juatified the inference that deceased probably went by the route he did in order to set his coat. ' -

Accordingly judgment would be ea« tercd for the widow for £SOO compensation, with funeral expenses and costs.