WATERSIDER'S FATAL FALL

Auckland Star, Volume LI, Issue 41, 17 February 1920, Page 5

WATERSIDER'S FATAL FALL

WIDOWS CLAIM FOB £2,000. JURY FINDS FOR £ISOO. '■ DEFENCE OX POIXT3 OF LA"W, , . a A verdict for the plaintiff for fISOO * damages was returned this morning- by ( the jury in the Supreme Court action r brought by Elizabeth Emma Readford a against Al H. Xathan, Ltd., claiming £2000 damages for the death of her . husband, Walter Innes Readford, -who ■ died as the result of falling- down a hold j of the steamer Ayrshire at Auckland in r February, 1919. The case wae heard by s I Mr. Justice Chapman. Mr. P. J. O-'Regan J ; appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. H. P. c I Richmond for the detence. s i The evidence for the plaintiff was that c the deceased and other watersiderwwo- t kers were in the habit of going to and c from their work in No. 4 hold by along the shelter deck over Xo. 5 hold. | j The main deck hatches of this hold h.vi' ] been put on, but the shelter de:k'j hatches were off. The space around the lower hatchway was dark, and when the deceased was found lying , at the bottom of the hold it was a«uraed that he hail fallen down the hatchway owing to the lack of a protective light. It was claimed by Mr. O"Regan that the master of the ship had committed a breach of ihe Harbours Act, 190 S. in ia/.l'Dg to place a light over the open hatch. : Mr. Richmond moved for a nonsuit on I a number of grounds. He maintained ! that the master was personally responsible under the Harbours Act for lighting the hatchway, and that the owners were ! not responsible for his omission. He I *jl?o contended that no evidence ha.l been ijrought to show that Messrs. Xathan were responsible for the working of tne ship, since the etevedorins work had I been undertaken by the XeT Zealand ' Shipping Company, whose duty It wa» I to make proper use of the appliances on I the vessel. It had not been suggested ! that tho a-ppliances -were insufficient. i Other points raised by cor.nsel bore upon I the ownership of the vessel I Messrs. Xathan being the owners' agents), alleged contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, and an argument that tiiere was no evidence that he met his death in the performance of his duties. Xo evidence was called by the defence. Both cor.nsel addressed the jury, and i his Honor, after summing up, handed I the jury a set of nine issues. I After lieing out an hour or so the j jury found for the plaintiff on all I the points except two. to which no answer was returned. They found that the defendants, by their representative, vrere guilty of negligence in leaving the hatchway cnguarded and the way past it open, that the deceased, by falling down the hold in consequence of .such negligence, that he was not- provided with reasonably safe means of getting to his work in Xo. 4 hold, and tha-t he ■ was not guilty of contributory negii- . gence. They awarded the plaintiff £11200 damages, and her daughter ; £600. Argument on the legal po : n>-s will be ', taken to-morow. ' !