صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

of a

notice shall not be a bar to overruled, although no mention is made the maintenance of proceedings if it is of this case in the court of appeal.71 diced in his defense" by such want of that the employer has not been prejunotice; consequently the court of appeal diced by the former's failure to give due has held that the fact that the employer notice of the accident.72 If the arbitrawas not able to give the insurance com- tor refuses to find that the employer was pany notice of the accident, thereby los

not prejudiced, and there is evidence to ing his right of indemnity against such insurance company, is not relevant upon

support his conclusions, the court of apthe question of prejudice, since such peal will not interfere.73 It is not error failure to give notice to the insurance for the county court judge to omit the company does not prejudice the employ- words “in his defense” in a finding that er in his defense to the action by the the workman had not discharged the employee.70 A contrary decision by the onus of proving that the employers “had county court judge must be considered as not been prejudiced.”74

69 A failure to give notice for four months | given until nearly a month thereafter, the is unreasonable, and may be found preju. applicant must show affirmative proof that dicial to the employer. Stronge v. Hazlett the employer was not prejudiced by failure (1910) 44 Ir. Law Times, 10, 3 B. W. C. C. to give prompt notice. Lacey v. Mowlem 581.

[1914] W. C. & Ins. Rep. (Eng.) 63, 7 B. W. The employers will presumably be prej. C. C. 135. udiced by a failure to give notice of an acci. Where the workman had failed to give dent for upwards of five months. Shannon | notice of the injury within a reasonable v. Bainbridge Weaving Co. (1911) 45 Ir. time, affirmative evidence must be introLaw Times, 74.

duced to show that the employer was not A delay of four months in giving notice prejudiced because of such failure. Grime of injury which results in hernia is preju- v. Fletcher (1915) 1 K. B. (Eng.) 734, 31 diciaľ to the employers. Jackson v. Vickers Times L. R. 158, 50 L. J. 55, 84 L. J. K. B. [1912] W. C. Rep. (Eng.) 274, 5 B. W. C. C. N. S. 847, (1915) W. N. 43, 59 Sol. Jo. 233, 432.

8 B. W. C. C. 69. 70 Butt v. Gellyceidrim Colliery Co. (1909) In Hayward v. Westleigh Colliery Co. 3 B. W. C. C. (Eng.) 44.

[1915] A. C. (Eng.) 540, 84 L. J. K. B. N. S. 71 A delay in giving notice of a claim to 661, 112 L. T. X. S. 1001, 31 Times L. R. the respondent, whereby he loses his right 215, [1915] W. N. 67, 59 Sol. Jo. 269, 8 to indemnity against an insurance compa- B. W. C. C. 278, reversing, [1914] W. C. & ny, is prejudicial to him. Barker v. Holmes Ins. Rep. 21, 7 B. W. C. C. 53, it was held (1904; c. C.) 117 L. T. Jo. (Eng.) 158, 6 that the arbitrator might hold that the emW. C. C. 52.

ployers were not prejudiced where there 72 Shearer v. Miller (1899) 2 Sc. Sess. Cas.

was no inherent probability that could be 5th series, 114, 37 Scot. L. R. 80, 7 Scot. L.

seen that the employers would be prejuT. 231; Hancock v. British Westinghouse diced by the absence of a notice for a few Electric Co. (1910) 3 B. W. C. C. (Eng.) days, and they gave no evidence that they 210; Hughes v. Coed Talon Colliery, Co. had been prejudiced. [1909] 1 K. B. (Eng.) 957, 78 L. J. K. B. A workman has the burden of showing N. S. 539, 100 L. T. N. S. 555; Dalgiesh v. that the employer has not been prejudiced, Gartside [1914] W. C. & Ins. Rep. (Eng.) or, if the employer has been prejudiced, the 319, 7 B. W. C. c. 535; Hodgson v. Robins workman must prove that the want of no[1914] W. C. & Ins. Rep. (Eng.) 65, (1914] tice was occasioned by a mistake or other W. N. 47, 7 B. W. C. C. 232; Hunt v. High- reasonable cause. Egerton v. Moore (1912] ley Min. Co. [1914] W. C. & Ins. Rep. (Eng.) 2 K. B. (Eng.) 308, 81 L. JK. B. N. S. 696, 402, 7 B. W. C. Č. 716; Murphy v. Shire. | 106 L. T. N. S. 663, [1912] W. C. Rep. 250, brook Colliery [1913] W. C. & Ins. Rep. [1912] W. N. 89, 5 B. W. C. C. 284. (Eng.) 184, 6 B. W. C. C. 237; Pimm v. The workman has not discharged the burClement Talbot (1914] W. C. & Ins. Rep. den of proving that the employers were (Eng.) 350, 7 B. W. C. C. 565; Tibbs v. not prejudiced by delay in giving notice Watts (1909) 2 B. W. C. C. (Eng.) 164; where he claimed to have been ruptured on Eydmann Premier Accumulator Co. the 27th of the month, and gave notice on [1915] W. C. & Ins. Rep. (Eng.) 82, 8 B. the 30th, when there was no reason given W. C. C. 121.

for the delay, and no evidence to show that The applicant must prove that he gave the employer had not been prejudiced. notice of the claim within six months of Nicholls v. Briton Ferry U. D. C. (1915] W. the occurrence of the accident, or that his C. & Ins. Rep. (Eng.) 14, 8 B. W. C. C. failure to do so was occasioned by mistake, 42. absence from the United Kingdom, or other 73 Miller v. Richarson [1915] 3 K. B. reasonable cause. Roberts v. Crystal Pala::P (Eng.) 76, 84 L. J. K. B. N. S. 1366. Foot Ball Club (1909) 3 B. W. C. C. (Eng.) 74 Snelling v. Norton Hill Colliery Co. 51.

[1913] W. C. & Ins. Rep. (Eng.) 497, 109 Where no notice of the accident was L. T. N. S. 81, 6 B. W. C. C. 506.

V.

h. Excuses for not giving notice or the case to debar the employer from making claim in time.

raising that defense. Where the serious The provision which requires the claim character of the injury is apparent, and for compensation to be made within six

the workman has had opportunity to months of th occurrence of the accident give the notice, failure so to do for a

considerable time afterwards will bar causing the injury is not necessarily an

But the fact that the absolute bar to proceedings for the as

compensation.75

consequences of the injuries were not sessment of compensation, commenced apparent at the time has been held to after six months by an injured workman; be a sufficient excuse for not giving noand the county court judge or other ar- tice immediately.76 This is particularly bitrator has jurisdiction to inquire true where a disease caused by the acciwhether there are any circumstances in dent subsequently supervened, 77

or where 75 Where a workman met with an acci- , It is error for the county court to ignore dent causing him to bite his tongue, which the fact that no written notice of the acci

as

soon

man.

soon

to the foreman of the work, but stated that injured his knee by a fall, and no notice he was not severely injured, and the acci- of any kind was given for upwards of three dent was also reported to one of the em- weeks, and no medical attendance was had ployers, who happened to be present at thc by the workman for that period. Coltman time, and four days afterwards the work. v. Morrison (1914) 7 B. W. C. C. 194, man was attended by his own doctor, who [1914) W. C. & Ins. Rep. (Eng.) 44. found that he was suffering from an open, It cannot be said that notice was given discharging wound in his tongue, and the

as practicable after an accident, doctor continued to attend the workman for | where the workman had been injured by some time, and the difficulty of taking food a blow from a chip off a brick, the notice increased, but the workman continued to was not given until three weeks thereafter, work for about six months, when, after lay. and subsequent to the death of the working off for a week, he died of cancer of the Hunt v. Highley Min. Co. (1914) 7 tongue, there is no reasonable cause for B. W. C. C. (Eng.) 716. failing to give notice of the accident as re- ! Notice of the accident is not given as quired by $ 2 of the act. Potter v. Welch

as practicable after the happening (1914] 3 K. B. (Eng.) 1020, 30 Times L. R. thereof, where a workman cut his knuckle 644, [1914] W. N. 106, 317, 137 L. T. Jo. / and burned it on Wednesday, and worked 290, 83 L. J. K. B. N. S. 1852, 7 B. W. C. C. the two following days, and by the morning 738.

of Saturday, the injured finger was in such Where a workman fell from a loft and in- a condition that the workman could not jured his head, and was off from duty for hold his hammer, and at 10 o'clock had about two days and a half, when he re- to knock off work and go home, and conturned, and thereafter continued to work ' sulted a doctor upon Monday, at which time for upwards of six months, during all of the finger was in such a septic condition which time he complained of headaches as that it had to be amputated.

Wassell v. result of the fall, and after that time he Russell (1915) 112 L. T. N. S. (Eng.) 902, became insane, he is not entitled to com- [1915] W. C. & Ins. Rep. 88, (1915] W. N. pensation, where no notice was given of the 69, 8 B. W. C. C. 230. accident until fully a year after it occurred, A man who received a serious cut upon as his case did not fall within the proviso his thumb, which, after being properly to $ 2. Clapp v. Carter (1914) 110 L. T. dressed upon three different occasions, still N. S. (Eng.) 491, 58 Sol. Jo. 232, [1914] continued to pain him severely for about W. C. & Ins. Rep. 82, 7 B. W. C. C. 28. a month, was not justified in failing to

A county court judge may find that no- | notify the employer of the injury until over tice was not given as as practical | a month after the accident. Dalgiesh v. after the accident, where it was not given | Gartside (1914) W. C. & Ins. Rep. (Eng.) until one month after, although the claim. 319, 7 B. W. C. C. 535. ant had seen his employer twice in the 76 That the consequences of a strain were meantime. Leach v. Hickson (1911) 4 B. not apparent at the time is a sufficient & W. C. C. (Eng.) 153.

excuse for not giving notice of the injury. There is no reasonable excuse for failure Tibbs v. Watts (1909) 2 B. W. C. C. (Eng.) to give notice of the injury where the work- 164. man was injured by a splinter of iron enter- The workman may be found justified in ing his eye, and upon the day of the injury not giving notice for a period of nine he consulted his own physician, and there. months, where the effect of the injury was after for upwards of two weeks, he suffered not apparent during that time. Fry v. great pain, and then consulted another Cheltenham Corp. [1911] W. N. (Eng.) 199, doctor, and, sixteen days after the injury, 81 L. J. K. B. N. S. 41, 105 L. T. N. S. 495, committed suicide. Grime Fletcher 28 Times L. R. 16, 56 Sol. Jo. 33, 5 B. W. (1915) 1 K. B. (Eng.) 734, 31 Times L. R. C. C. 162. 158, 50 L. J. 55, 84 L. J. K. B. N. S. 847, 77 That a workman did not know for six (1915) W. N. 43, 59 Sol. Jo. 233, 8 B. W. months that she had suffered a nervous C. C. 69.

shock from a fire, which subsequently

soon

cause.

the workman's doctor did not know what sation, may, under all the circumstances was the matter with him.78 So, the fact of the case, be a sufficient excuse for that the injuries were slight, and the not giving notice.79 But notice must be workman did not intend to ask compen- given as soon as the dangerous character caused a serious disease, is sufficient reason | diced by his failure to give timely notice, for failure to give notice of the accident. since the want of notice was occasioned by Hoare v. Arding (1911) 5 B. W. C. C. (Eng.) mistake for which there was reasonable 36.

Rankine v. Alloa Coal Co. (1904) Where the applicant received a blow on 6 Sc. Sess. Cas. 5th series, 375, 41 Scot. L. the right side of her head, and there were R. 306, 11 Scot. L. T. 670. no immediate effects, but subsequently Where an injured workman intentionally traumatic epilepsy supervened, and she did not give notice of his accident at the gave notice shortly after she knew that the time, believing that his injuries would not epilepsy was caused by the blow, the county keep him from work, but after going to the court judge may find that the employers hospital realized that his injuries were were not prejudiced, although it was about serious, and gave written notice of the six months after the injury. Eaton v. accident to his employers about three Evans (1911) 5 B. W. C. Č. (Eng.) 82. months after the accident, his delay in giv

It is a sufficient excuse for not giving ing notice is due to mistake or other reanotice of an accident that the workman did sonable cause within the meaning of $ 2. not lose any time from his work for several Brown v. Lochgelly Iron & Coal Co. (1907] months, and the disease which subsequently S. C. (Scot.) 198. supervened was latent in character, and the There is reasonable cause for failing to workman did not know that it was the give a formal notice of the injury, where result of the accident. Thompson v. North- the claimant believes that his injuries are Eastern Marine Engineering Co. (1914) 110 not serious, and a day after the accident, L. T. N. S. (Eng.) 441, [1914] W. N. 22, and again a month after, he gives a verbal [1914] W. C. & Ins. Rep. 13, 7 B. W. C. C. notice of it. Refuge Assur. Co. v. Millar 49.

(1911) 49 Scot. L. R. 67. 78 It is a sufficient excuse for failure to give notice for several months, that neither within six months that he was suffering

The failure of a collier to give notice the workman nor his doctors knew what ailed him. Eke v. Hart-Dyke [1910] 2

from nystagmus is excusable where he had K. B. (Eng.) 677, 80 L. J. K. B. N. S: 90; could be cured by spending a short time

received medical advice that the disease 103 L. T. N. S. 174, 26 Times L. R. 613, 3 B. W. C. C. 482, 3 N. C. C. A. 230. Cozens. above ground, and, there being at that time Hardy, M. R., said: “Neither of the doc

a strike at his mine, he hoped during the tors was at the time prepared to say that continuance thereof to live in the open air, there had been an accident within the mean

and, by adopting the course recommended ing of the act. The wife, of course, knew by the doctor, to cure the disease, and not that her husband was very ill, and ill from put in a claim. Moore v. Naval Colliery Co. a disease from which he died, but it was

[1912] 1 K. B. (Eng.) 28, 81 L. J. K. B. not present to any of their minds that there N. S. 149, 105 L. T. N. S. 838, 5 B. W. C. C. had been an accident in respect of which 87, [1912] W. C. Rep. 81. notice should have been given. I think,

Where an injured workman failed to give therefore, that there was 'reasonable cause' notice of the accident because he thought for not giving the notice, and although the his injuries were only slight, and did give absence of notice may have, to some extent, actual notice only eighteen weeks after the prejudiced the employer, in my opinion it injury, the excuse is reasonable. Millar v. does not prevent the applicant from succeed. Refuge Assur. Co. [1912] S. C. 37, 49 Scot. ing if she can prove that it was an injury L. R. 67, 5 B. W. C. C. 522. by accident within the meaning of § 1,

Delay may be found to be due to reasubsec. 1."

sonable cause where the workman was aged It may be held that a delay in giving and crippled, and feared that if he applied notice for about eight months is by mistake for compensation the insurance company where the work man was told by a doctor would not permit the employers to retain that the pain which he suffered was due to him, and he did give notice shortly after muscular rheumatism, and not to injury. he found that he would never be able to Ellis v. Fairfield Shipbuilding & Engineer- work again. Breakwell v. Clee Hill Granite ing Co. [1913] S. C. 217, [1913] W. C. & Co. (1911) 5 B. W. C. C. (Eng.) 133. Ins. Rep. 88, 6 B. W. C. C. 308, 50 Scot. L. A county court judge is justified in findR. 137, [1912] 2 Scot. L. T. 485.

ing that a workman had reasonable cause 79 Where an employee did not regard his for failing to give notice of an injury which injury as so serious as his doctor's ad- resulted in a rupture, where, although he vice should have led him to suppose, and

was aware at the time that he had received he did not intend to make any claim under some form of an injury, did not think that the act if his recovery had been as satis. it was serious, and, as a matter of fact, factory as he expected, he is not barred did not lose an hour's time for months after from obtaining compensation, although he receiving such injury, and did give notice as failed to give notice for five months after soon as he realized that the injury was of his injuries, and the employers were preju-l a serious character. Zillwood v. Winch

[ocr errors]

V.

of the injury appears, 80 and the mere was obliged to knock off work, and two hope on the part of the injured workman days thereafter the finger was in such that he would get better and would not a septic condition that amputation was have to make any claim has been held necessary.82 And the fact that a miner's not sufficient to justify him in delaying doctor did not think that his injury the making of the claim for over two would turn out seriously does not justify months, where he suffered severely all him in regarding it as trivial, where, as a of the time.81 So, the fact that a work- matter of fact, it prevented him froin man thought that an injury to his doing his ordinary work.83 knuckle was trivial is not sufficient rea- The mistake referred to in ý 2 is a son to justify his failure to give notice mistake of fact, and not a mistake of of the accident, where, two days after law,84 and ignorance of the existence of the accident, the finger pained him so the compensation act does not excuse that he could not hold his hammer, and ' failure to give the notice.85 The unful[1914] W. C. & Ins. Rep. (Eng.) 87, 7 B. 83 Fox Barrow Hematite Steel Co. W. C. C. 60.

1

(1915) 84 L. J. K. B. N. S. (Eng.) 1327, Failure to give notice of injury for up Pickford, L. J., said: “The only cause that wards of two years may be found to be is suggested here is that the workman excusable where the injury was caused by honestly thought, and had reason to think, a strain, and the workman did not kuow that the injury was trivial. Now, in a that he was severely injured, and, after sense I think he had. That he thought resting for an hour, was able to go on with and had reason to think that the injury his work, and the injury did not trouble would very soon get better in the ordinary him during the interval except on one occa- course of things I think was the case; but sion, and then but slightly, and notice was I do not think that that concludes the matgiven shortly after he became incapacitated. ter. If, at the time, the injury was of a Coulson v. South Moor Colliery Co. (1915) nature, although trivial from the point of 84 L. J. K. B. N. S. (Eng.) 508, 112 L. T. view which I have already indicateil, to N. S. 901, 31 Times L. R. 207, [1914] W.C. interfere with the man's ordinary avocation, & Ins. Rep. 161, [1915] W. N. 83, 8 B. W. it could not, I think, within the cases which C. C. 253.

have been referred to and other similar The county court judge may find that cases, which are many, be considered as notice was given as soon as practical after trivial.

Of course,

whether this be so or the injury, where the workman was injured not depends upon the view taken of the eviby the slipping of his bicycle, but did not dence, and I confess I take the view that believe that his injuries were serious, and " the learned county court judge took of the gave notice about two months thereafter, , evidence,-namely, that, although the man as soon as he learned that a cancer had thought that this injury would in all probadeveloped from the injury. Haward v. Row-bility get better in a very short time, and sell (1914) W. C. & Ins. Rep. (Eng.) 314, turn out as, in ordinary language, nothing 7 B. W. C. C. 552.

serious, and although the doctor's evidence 80 Where a workman was injured by a shows he was justified in so thinking, still, blow on the breast, which in a few days did while the injury existed in the condition in not appear to be at all dangerous, and was which it was immediately after the accilatent for six months, when a swelling came dent and before it got worse, the man was on his breast, and he failed for nearly six not able to work. He did not work in the months thereafter from giving notice to evening the accident happened, -I mean, at, the employers in respect to the injury, he his ordinary work. He only helped to push cannot obtain the benefit of the proviso of a tub, and he did not work at his ordinary § 2, subsec. 1. Egerton v. Moore [1912] work because of the injury to his eye, which 2 K. B. (Eng.) 308, 81 L. J. K. B. N. S. prevented him from so doing,- perhaps not 696, 106 1. T. N. S. 663, [1912] W. C. Rep. absolutely made it impossible for him to 250, [1912] W. N. 89, 5 B. W. C. C. 284, work, but prevented him in the ordinary Notice of the accident cannot be held to sense from working.

It seems to me have been given within a reasonable time, that an injury which incapacitates a man where a man suffered a slight injury, and or hinders a man seriously from doing his the wound thereafter healed, but septic poi- ordinary work cannot be considered so trivisoning supervened, and no notice was given al as to make it reasonable for him not to for nearly a month after the workman knew give notice of it, simply because the man that his condition was serious. Eydmann v. thinks, and has reason to think, that it will Premier Accumulator Co. (1915) 8 B. W. C. in all probability get better within a short C. (Eng.) 121.

time." 81 Webster v. Cohen Bros. (1913) 108 L. 84 Egerton v. Moore [1912] 2 K. B. T. N. S. (Eng.) 197, 29 Times L. R. 217, | (Eng.) 308, 81 L. J. K. B. N. S. 696, 106 (1913] W. C. & Ins. Rep. 268, 57 Sol. Jo. L. T. N. S. 663, [1912] W. C. Rep. 250, 244, 6 B. W. C. C. 92.

[1912] W. N. 89, 5 B. W. C. C. 284; Bruno 82 Wassel v. Russell (1915) 112 L. T. N. v. International Coal & Coke Co. (1913; S. (Eng.) 902 [1915] W. C. & Ins. Rep. 88, Alberta) 7 B. W. C. C. 1033. (1915] W. N. 69, 8 B. W. C. C. 230.

85 Roles v. Pascall [1911] 1 K. B. (Eng.) cases, 87

89

filled expectation of a workman employ- Absence from the United Kingdom has ed by a subcontractor that the latter been held a sufficient excuse in a few will notify the chief contractor of an

as has serious sickness immed

iately following the injury.88 accident to the workman of which the

The conduct of the employer may be latter notified the subcontractor is not such that he will be held to have waived a statutory mistake. 86

the giving of the notice,

or any defects 982, 80 L. J. K. B. N. S. 728, 104 L. T. N. | 2 Q. B. (Eng.) 240, 82 L. T. N, S. 346, 69 S. 298, 4 B. W. C. C. 148; Melville v. L. J. Q. B. N. S. 551, 64 J. P. 420, 48 Week. M'Carthy (Ir.) [1913] W. C. & Ins. Rep. Rep. 533, 16 Times L. R. 327. 353, cited in Law Reports Current Dig. 1913, Where a workman engaged in lifting col. 725; Judd v. Metropolitan Asylums heavy cases felt a severe strain internally, Board [1912] W. C. Rep. (Eng.) 220, 5 B. and informed his foreman that an old rupW. C. Č. 420; Bruno v. International Coal ture had come down, and that he would con& Coke Co. (1913; Alberta) 7 B. W. C. C. sult a doctor, and having been informed 1033.

by the doctor that he would have to under86 Where a workman merely tells the go an operation, he so informed his emsubcontractor who employs him of his in- ployer, who agreed to make weekly payjury, in the expectation that the subcon- ments of half wages, the county court judge tractor will tell the employer, and does not may find that the employer had been ingive written notice for five months, there is formed of the accident as soon as possible, no mistake which will excuse the failure to and was not prejudiced by want of or any give notice. Griffiths v. Atkinson (1912) defect or inaccuracy in the notice, although 106 L. T. N. S. (Eng.) 852, [1912] D. C. he had not been given a written notice. Rep. 277, 5 B. W. C. C. 345.

Ralph v. Mitchell [1913] W. C. & Ins. Rep. 87 Failure to give notice for over two | (Eng.) 501, 6 B. W. C. C. 678. years may be found to be excusable where

Employers who have paid full compensa the workman was sick during that period. tion for more than four months are thereand was in a foreign country, spending after estopped from claiming that notice of most of the time in hospitals. Dight v. the accident was not given as soon as possiCraster Hall [1913] 3 K. B. (Eng.) 700, 82 ble, and that they were prejudiced thereby. L. J. K. B. N. S. 1307, 109 L. T. N. S. 200, Turnbull v. Vickers (1914) 7 B. W. C. C. 29 Times L. R. 676, [1913] W. N. 259, 6 B. (Eng.) 396. W. C. C. 674.

In Luckie v. Merry (1915) 31 Times L. The failure to give prompt notice of the R. (Eng.) 466, [1915] W. N. 243, 59 Sol. accident is excusable where the applicant | Jo. 544, it was held that the county court was absent from the United Kingdom at judge may find that there was reasonable the time, and the delay after her return, excuse for failure to give notice of an acciwhich was accomplished as soon as practica dent, where the injured workman had been ble, was occasioned by legal advice to the for seventeen years in the employment of effect that her time to give notice had ex- the respondent as a horse keeper, and, uppired. Smith v. Pearson (1909; C. C.) 2 B. on crushing his fingers, went to the employW. C. C. (Eng.) 468.

er, who told him to potter in the factory The finding of the county court judge until he was better, which he did, and for that a workman's failure to make a claim more than six months remained in the emwithin six months was “due to” his ab. ployment, doing his old work and receiving sence from the United Kingdom, instead his old wages, when he was discharged for of finding that it was “occasioned by," does reasons not connected with the accident. not invalidate his finding. Dight v. Craster The master of the rolls distinguished two Hall (Eng.) supra.

Irish cases which were cited by the county 88 The fact that the applicant had been court judge as authority for holding that eight weeks in the hospital is a

there was no reasonable excuse shown. The able excuse for not giving notice within first of these cases was Healy v. Galloway, six weeks. Ex parte Dunn (1911) 28 W. N. | 41 Ir. Law Times, 5, which was a case under New So. Wales, 9.

the old law, which did not provide for a plea 89 An agreement arrived at between the of reasonable excuse. The decision of the parties shortly after the accident, that court in this case was that the mere fact there is a statutory liability on the em- that the employer had paid wages after ployer to pay compensation, the amount the accident was not such a circumstance of compensation being left open for future as amounted to a waiver by the employer settlement, is evidence upon which the judge of the necessity of making a claim, or, to or arbitrator may properly find that the put it in another way, was not a foundaemployer estopped from setting up the tion for an estoppel to prevent the master defense that the request for arbitration was from asserting that no claim had been not filed within six months of the accident. made. The Healy Case was cited in the Having allowed the six months to expire second case mentioned, Lynch v. Lansdowne, while the negotiations were still proceeding, 48 Ir. Law Times, 89, as authority for the the employer cannot then turn round and proposition that mere payment of wages say that the time for claiming compensa- from an employer to an injured workman tion has gone by. Wright v. Bagnall (1900) | after the latter has been injured, is not

reason

« السابقةمتابعة »