INJURED WHILE TRUCKING.

Auckland Star, Volume LVII, Issue 137, 11 June 1926, Page 5

INJURED WHILE TRUCKING.

ACCIDENT AT QUARRY. CLAIM FOR DAMAGES. (3y Teleerapi. —Own Correspondent.) HAMILTON, this day. A claim for £1648 damages for injuries received whilst enzineer at the Te Kaka quarries, near Te Awamutu, was heard in the Supreme Court, Hamilton, yesterday, before his Honor Mr. Justice Herdman and a jury of 12, plaintiff being James Floyd, labourer, Te Kuiti, zr.l defendants Thomas G. Martin, farmer, and William Duncan Ross McCurJie, engineer, formerly carrying on business in partnership at Te Kawa under the style of the Te Kawa Quarry Company. Mr. A. B. R. Mossman, Otorohansra, appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. E. H. Northcroft. instructed by Mr. Preston, Te Awamutu. represented defendants. Plaintiff set out that while engaged in trucking metal in September, 1925, he sustained severe injuries to his left leg owing to the truck falling backwards. As a result, he had suffered total permanent incapacity until October 15, and would suffer partial incapacity henceforth. He was, as a result of the injury, now able to do only light work. He claimed that defendants were guilty of negligence by not having the overhead tramway so constructed with a sufficiently wide platform, and sufficiently guarded as to comply with the Stone Quarries Act: and in not providing a proper and suitable truck fitted with safe and proper safety devices. The claim was made up as follows: —Loss of wages £S6 11/. medical expenses £6 6/, travelling expenses £6. future medical expenses £50, general damages £1500. The defence wag that the truck was substantially constructed, simply operated, and of proper design, and that there was ample room provided on the tipping platform to operate the tipping of the truck, while the platform was well protected with substantial guard and handrail. They also held that the truck fell back after tipping, owing to plaintiff's own carelessness. In any case the injury to defendant's leg was only slight, and the company had paid him £10 13/ wages from the period of his incapacity, and that plaintiff had signed a receipt for this in full discharge of all claims he might have in respect of any injury received by him. Plaintiff, it was stated, left defendant's employ on October 15 to take up other employment. In his summing up. his Honor described the claim as a ridiculous one, and thought some of the jury might even regard it as preposterous. Plaintiff, to his Honor's mind, suffered only from a bruise, and after sleeping on his claim for six months, he now came forward and brought an action for this large amount of money. After a retirement lasting four hours the jury returned a verdict for plaintiff for £300, £148 of which was for special damages. Mr. Northcroft gave notice to move for a new trial on the ground that the verdict was against the weight of evidence.