INJURY TO KNEE

Waikato Times, Volume 124, Issue 20729, 13 February 1939, Page 8

INJURY TO KNEE

CLAIM FOR £1029 EMPLOYERS DENY NEGLIGENCE MOTOR WRECKER CRUSHED The contention that plaintiff was not acting within the scope of his employment. at the time of the accident was advanced by Mr S. D. E. Weir Auckland) when opening defendant’s case before Mr Justice Smith in the Supreme Court, Hamilton, to-day in the case in which Thomas Alexander Clark Taylor, by his guardian. Thomas Taylor, sought £1029 19s 6d from Auto Replacements. Limited (Frankton) as compensation for injuries received at his work on January 18, 1938. Plaintiff was represented by Messrs W. ,J. King and F. D. Robertshaw, and Mr J. Hore ('Auckland) was associated with Mr Weir. Plaintiff suffered an injury to his left, knee when he was crushed while shifting a car for dimantling, and it was claimed that the accident was due to negligence on the part of one of defendant’s servants. The actual facts were known only to Waugh and Taylor, the youth engaged on the job. said Mr Weir, who stated that the story in the pleadings was different, from that given by the witnesses in court, in the pleadings it was stated that Taylor got out of the car gave advice to Waugh and was returning to his seat when he was struck. Because plaintiff was a person who was an employee of the defendant company the case was not just one for worker's compensation. Plaintiff had to prove negligence and the jury had to he satisfied that the injuries were attributable to the employer. Reasonable Care Necessary At the time of the accident neither Waugh nor Taylor was acting within the scope of his employment in shifting the car or using the wrecker for the purpose. At the time of the accident Waugh was doing something which, as far as his employer was concerned, he had no right to do. Speaking of negligence, Mr Weir said the law did not expect any man to be infallible, but it did require the exercise of reasonable care. It had been stated that the place was a dangerous one in which to work, but there had never previously been an accident in the 18 years* history of the firm. The managing director of the defendant company, James Alfred Thomas, said Waugh had not driven the wrecker prior to the accident. The plaro where the accident happened was not the usual wrecking area, but was brought into use only when there was no room elsewhere. The surface of the yard was solid and the rims of the old car had not sunk into it. Witness considered the car could have been dismantled in its original position. He would have allowed the youths to push the vehicle, but he would not have permitted them to use the wrecker. When questioned after the accident Waugh said his foot, slipped off the clutch and he did not know that. Taylor was out of the car. Dealing with the condition of plaintiff’s knee. Dr. E. C. Brewis, said after his examination on November 30 he expected an improvement. He thought, the metal support would have to be worn for about six months. When inspected on February 8 the flexion of the. knee had improved and thp colour of the skin was better. The injured knee was definitely better than on November 30 and the wasting of the muscles was less noticeable. At the second Inspection plaintiff was able to walk without the metal support and witness thought the stage might be reached when the metal support could be discarded. (Proceeding)