ENDEAN'S BUILDINGS FATALITY

Auckland Star, Volume LIII, Issue 129, 2 June 1922, Page 2

ENDEAN'S BUILDINGS FATALITY

CLAIM FOR COBEPENSATIOir.

SUPREME COURT HEARING CONTINUED. % 'Hie hearitifT in the Supreme Court of the claim of £3000 damages for the loss of her husband by Annie Olive Jones (Mr. .lohiistone and Mr. Butler) against Norman Taylor, master painter, trading as John Henderson and Company (Mr. Anderson and Mr. Endean), arising out of the recent scaffolding fatality in Endean'H Buildings, was continued yesterday after the "Star had gone to Press! The witness Burrows, a painter, continuing, said that be returned from lunch at 12.:«) a n<l resumed work. At about 12.40 Courtney said, "We will go to work on the scaffold; the inspector has been." A couple of pinnies were then placed halfway up the scaffolding, and lour men went, out on the planks to work. Two men were actually working on the top plank. His ilonor: What's the use of having a scaffolding inspector if planks are pat. across the well wiithout even a net, below. Continuing, witness stated that he went down below just. Ix-fore two o'clock. A few minutes later he heard the sound of breaking timber, am! on looking up saw the timber find his four compnniona falling down the well. >V itness recognised a broken beam (produced). One end which was laslied near a window was still hangiing on. The Foreman: Where were the other two men working; you say two were on the plank? Witness: The other two men were standing on three planks steadying the treatle. In answer to Mr. Endean, witness said that be did not notice anything wrong with the broken plunk. He did not notice the inspector inspecting the scaffolding. Witness worked on the scaffold for about an hour. A.V EXPERTS EVIDENCE. Alfred (Jreville Walker, civil engineer, Auckland, with about twenty years' experience in New Zealand, wa.s the next witness, lie had made an examination of the fifth flour of Endeans BudldCngß and of the broken beam. The beam that failed wa.s of Oregon pine. The beam was a mo.st unsuitable and unsatisfactory piece of timber for such a rlskv job. His Ilonor: Why? Witness: It bail two knots, one on cither <icie. and the grain was too coarse. IIU Honor: You mean that the person responsible should have seen the two knots i n the beam?- -Yes. certainly. Witness, in answer to the foreman of the jury, stated that a knot in an old piece of limber would make it weaker than a knot in a green piece. The beam should have been laid on its edge instead of on its flat. Mr. Andcr.-on: This same beam, your Honor, was used on the same job" ten months ago. His Honor: Well, it 'is the last straw that breaks the camel's back, you know. Witness, proceeding, sajd that in Ilia opinion the crack in the beam would be plainly visible. The beam was not a •safe beam located as it was on its flatMr. Anderson: Why was not this beam a safe l>eam. and how could yon tell:—By the knots. <i. H. Lightfoot. officer in charge of the Labour Department, Auckland, and Inspector of Scaffolding, said that be certainly would not have passed the timber. The notice regarding the scaffolding wae received in the morning, but no pormit was given. J. R. R. Turnbull, outside foreman for •T. Hutchinson. contractor, stated that he was of opinion that the beam was not sound, and if it had been properly examined it would not have been used. H. Clinton Savage, architect, said that the marks on the beam showed that it had been fractured for some time before the accident, and in reply to a question by his Honor, said that the defect was very obvious. CASE FOR THE DEFENCE. Mr. Kndeun. for the defence, said that he proposed to call evidence to show that the defendant had provided his foVeman with adequate material suitable for scaffolding, and it would also be shown that Courtney and .Jones were qualified to select the material required. In addition, evidence would be called to show that the beams had a carrying capacity of six and α-half times the weight placed upon them. Similar work was done on these buildings ten months before the accident, when the beam which later collapsed was used. Counsel then quoted figures regarding the "factor of safety.' , when his Honour remarked that the other side would probably not dispute them, if the timber had been without defect. Mr. Johnstone said that that was so. The contention was that the timber was unsound. Mr. Kudean said the possibility of the beam breaking through one of the workmen falling on it also had to be considered. His Honor said that it was the duty of the defendant, to provide material as would meet such a contingency. Mr. Kndean said that the defect was latent and not. patent. This wa.s borne out by two of the survivors, who said that all the men handled the beam and did not see any defect. He also remarked that there was strong evidence to support the conclusion that it was latent, for the inspector of scaffolding passed the job and did not notice any defect. The people who saw the timber when it. was whole were in a better position to judge its condition than the experts who saw it when it was broken. Counsel nlso contended that Jones bad been guilty of contributor}' negligent c in that he selected and handled the timber. Evidence was given by a number of master painters and others employed by ■Messrs Courtney and Juncv who testified to their capability in regard to scaffolding work. Stanley Jonos. civil engineer, nuid that the defect in the beam would not be obvious to o reasonably careful man. and he did not think the flaw could have been discovered by examination. In reply to Mr. .Tohnetone witness said that now attention wtls drawn to tlie state of the beam it would have been wise to have rejected it. It certainly was faulty. Dudley V.. Smith, rawmiller, said that. in his opinion there would be nothing in the appearance of the beam before the accident to indicate that it was faulty. TO-DAY'S PROCEEDINGS. Charles John Ilawkc, sergeant of police, ssid that he ascertained the weight of the platform which collapsed. j The total weight was lewt. .'lqrs. 271b. i After the accident witness notified the scaffolding inspector and asked him to come at once, but the man who inspecI ted the scaffolding was not in his office.

Augustus B. Smith, a carrier, gave evidence that he carted some timber from Cirevntt's yard to Endean's Buildings at the end of January last. Courtney and Jones, who were afterward! kHled, assisted in carrying the beams to the lorry.

Ernest C. .1. Bailey, shipbuilder, stated that hi s firm was the largest wooden boat and ship builders in New Zealand, involving the selection of good timber for hulls and scaffolding for round the ship and selection of spars. Witness saw the ox 4 beam in Court, and. he would have selected it for a scaffolding such as was used in Endean's Buildings. Henry Oxley, a painter, next evidence. He" was, on February 1 this year, working at Endenn's Buildings With Burrows and the four men who were killed. The S X 4 beams that formed part of the scaffold were handled l>y them all and placed in position, including the beam in Court. Three beams were placed in position over the light well from the windows to the railings on the other side. One was nearest tlie rail next the lift, laid flat and tied at that end and the other from the window to the near side of the lift to the pillar and made fast there. The third one win on the other side. Six planks were distributed about the beams. They WTfi not. put in position until after lunch. There were four trestles and two planks also up on the fifth floor, •lust before 12 o'clock a man came up and said, "Are you going to work on that st-afforld!" and witness said "Why? ,, Tlie man replied, "I'm thi' building inspector," and witness then said "Well, 1 will fetch the foreman. , He then went up to the roof and brought, the foreman down. The man, witness now knew, was Mr. Oiresham. After Courtney came down the planks were down but the trestles were not on tlie planks. The beams were across the light well -and the planks across thorn. The trestles were lying at the side.

JCdwnrd Goodrhild, a building foreman in the employ of Mr. Grevatl. builder, al-o gave evidence that the 'beams were got from the yard the day prior to the accident. John Booth, foreman painter, said that last year he was employed by .lohu Henderson in decorating tlie inside ironwork of Endean'a Buildings. Ho had occasion to use scaffolding, ox 4 beams being used. The broken beam now in Court was used. He know Courtney, who was a h'r.-l-i-lass fctlfolder. Witness would have used the beam now in Court on a similar job to Courtney's. He Übed it on February 7, 1921. and saw nothing in the beam to attract attention. Witness fou..u . beam safe to work on. Charles Grevatt, builder and contractor, said he supplied the scaffolding to John Henderson and Company. His Honor: If you were going to erect a scaffolding thai, had to carry a number of men 75 feet above the ground, would you select a piece of timber with a crack in it? —No, I would look for a piece without cracks in it. Mr. .lohnstone: Would you have put the beams on edge had you been erecting the scaffolding , ; — Yes. Then it was bad workmanship to place the beams on their flats? —Yes. I consider the structure would have been quite all right if the beams had been pliued on thpir edge?. That closed the ease. ■hist alter the last witness had given evidence some argument ensued between counsel as to obtaining the evidence of the scaffolding inspector, Mr. Gresham. His Honor: Why not call him? Mr. Johnstone: I did not call him as a witness because the question whether the scaffolding was passed or not is not part of my case. The Foreman: The jury would like to hear Gresham's evidence, your Honor. Mr. Butler: Mr. Greaham'is not now in the employ of thp Labour Department, and was near MorrinsviSW. Mr. Anderson: Can't you call Gresham? His Honor said that it was impossible to adjourn the case for several days to bring his evidence. Mr. Johnstons: 1 am prepared to ■admit the evidence given by Oresham at the inquest, together with the report forwarded by him to the Minister. Mr. Anderson: 1 object to that course being taken. Sergeant Hawke had stated at the inquest that Gresham admitted ho had passed the job. It was quito obvious thai the report was made out by Gresham to rvculpnte himself. TTis Honor: I would not say that. His Honor adjourned the hearing for 15 minutos to consult counsel on the question of admitting the evidence given al the inquest. On resuming, his Honor stated that it wns decided to have the evidence read. Counsel then addressed the jury.