THE COMPENSATION CASE.

Gisborne Times, Volume XLV, Issue 3999, 4 August 1915, Page 2

THE COMPENSATION CASE.

WIDOW ~R?’ARI ED FULL CLALvI

ME, JUSTICE 'STRINGER’S 4L OG MEr! i.

His Honor Mr JtisLeo Stringer, with Mr E. F. Duthio ancl Z. A. AcCull nigh. at the Arbitration Omul yesterday morning, delivered ungineiit in the compensation case. Charlotte Brown, widow of the late Charles Brown, rabbit,er (Air y , ■ Nolan) v. the East Coast Lad. 1 Board (Mr L. T. Buruard), a cnnm far £512 18s. hi delivering judgment His Honor said :—“The plamtilf is Hi'; ( ' ! Charles Brown, late oi who was a rabbitei ni. employ of the defendants, and who ‘ met his death by accident on the Ist day oi .lamia rv, JJJ.j. 1 HC action is brought by lim plan:, ill on behalf of horsell am! children <s the dependents ol tho deceased, on the ground that the accident m question. r was one whij-h arose out of and in the course of tho employment ot fc|, c deceased hv tho ’defendants, and therefore that compensation is payable under the Workers’ Compensation Act. The facts are not in dispute, and liniv he stated, Siioi tly, os follows: The deceased and a man named Oldham were employed by tho defendants to keep tho rabrnts down on a certain defined area o land. .It was admittedly necessary that, m mdcr to efficiently perform the work expected of rabbi tors, they should have a team of dogs, and that these dogs should ho reasonably well led. <>ngjiially the deceased and Oldham we * paid' R)s a day for six days m the week, wet or line, and the delciidanl s also paid for llie food for the dogs.

S imo timo later, owing to sonic question having arisen as to accounts sent i to the defendants lor dogs meat, it was arranged that the men should be paid 10s (Id a day. instead ol 10s as j i'orincrlv, and that Urn « elci.da.its j should no longer be .-idled mum to . pay for food for the dogs; and tills j arnmgCMmMit v. ns on i<;ul on 11K‘ I s | day of January. - j dent occurred. Cn Unit day, the , does being in wan' < I lend, tho d<>- i coiTscd and Oldham went out lor vac purpose of catching wild goats, wlnc.i were, to he found in the locality oi llicir camp, in order to supply the Joes with meat. While thus engagcd~the decasi'd fell over a did on me bank of the Alohaka river, and sustained injuries from which, lie suhscqouut.lv died. The employment « the' deceased was such that it could not well be disunit'd, nor was it m fact disputed, that (lie accident to tho decease'll arose in the cmirsc ol his einployincut, but it was contended that, it did not arise out ol the employment,’ and therefore that there was no right, to compensate under the Workers’ " Compensation Act. As was said by the Lord Chancellor m Kitclienliam v. owners ol s.s. Jolianucslmre dilllj A.C. 517, the words out of or in ' course of ins cmplovnit'iit admit ot inexhaustible ‘varieties of application according to the nature of the emnlovmen I and the character ol die facts proved.’ In the present ease 11 io facts were peculiar. 'I he deceased and’his mate had to keen down the rabbits on the defined area. 4 hey wore paid lor six days in the week, wet or lino. There were no regulations as to ihc hours to bo worked or the days upon which the work was to be done. li must, however. have been understood that they were to devote time, equivalent to something like six working day, in the week, to the destruction ol rabbits, or incidental thereto. It was of course-known to the defendants that the deceased would have to procure food for his dogs, and it was also kiionn tty them that much time might be occupied in procuring such iood when, as ai this case, the camp oi the deceased was remote from access to sources lioiu which such food could be procured. It was tated by two of the inspectors for the defendants that it has become 'difficult, sometimes imnossi'dt*. m: i the rabbiters in question to pui'ehas: ! dog’s meat from any setih-rs near a: I hand, and that unless goal, or jv.gf wi'i'c procurable in the vicinity of tin camp They might have to travel long distances! which in some instances might ocupy two or three days, in going; to and returning i'nun a place ' wliere (Imy could purchase the necessary meat, and that the men weie therefore expected to hunt ior j>igs oi goats when comeiiiemiv jjrocurable. and that no deductions front tlieii wages were made lor the time thus spent. In other words, tiny defendants. through their officers, m order to conserve'the men’s time, as far as jmssililc for the i>urouse ior which tliev vveres engaged, vithe di'stiuetioii of rabbits, encouraged till' men, if they did not actually require them, to adopt tlie speedier hut move baz- ! anions' method* of hunting for dog’s food, rather than the slower, hut: safer method, of (ravelling to sonny possibly distant place where ordinary dog’s meat could be purchased. As lias been observed in questions of this sort, there is frequently a very narrow dividing line senarating cases which arise out of the employment from those which do not so arise, but we think that in the snecial circumstances above stated the accident to the deceased ihd arise out ot bis employment. In the case of Barker v. owners ol ship Black Rock (1911) 2 K.’B. 39, affirmed in the Mouse of Lords, which was so much relied upon by counsel for the tiefeiulants, it was hold that the deceased

sailor who met his death hy accident on returning to his shin, alter being aslmro for the purpose of purchasing provisions, was under no contractual obligation to obtain provisions for himself, and that in going ashore on the particular occasion lie did so entirely in his-own interest and for his own purposes, and therefore that his representatives were not entitled to compensation for his death. It the principle there enunciated applied to the special facts ot the present ease it might he fatal to the plaintiff's claim, but we do not think such principle is applicable. It cannot be indy said that in hunting for food for his dogs the deceased was acting entirely in Ids own interests and for Ins own purposes. So far as he was concerned it did not affect him what periods of time were occupied in procuring food for bis dogs, for the dogs bad to be fed, as the defendants knew, and the time .necessarily occupied in procuring the food was paid for by the .defendants. It was in the interests of the defendants and tis much for their purposes as for those of tile deceased that bunting for food, with its concomitant risks, was with the sanction and approval, if nob the express direction of the defendants, adopted by the deceased. This wo think is sufficient to distinguish this ease from the decision above referred to and also from the case of .Harlow v. Matte,' 14, (J.L.R., 807.' which was also relied upon hy Mr Barnard in his clear and concise argument on behalf of the defendants. The ease is on the border line, hut on the whole wo think that the plaintiff has established her right “to eomnonsation under the Act." Judgment therefore, will be for the amount claimed. £512 Ids, with costs £lO 10s, and witnesses’ expenses' and disbursements." Mis Honor, with the approval of Mr Nolan, made an order that one-third of tius compensation money should he paid to the widow direct and the remaining two-thirds, in the hands ot the Public Trustee, should he applied by him for the benefit of the children in such manner as lie may think fit.