SAWMILL ACCIDENT.

Auckland Star, Volume LVII, Issue 138, 12 June 1926, Page 11

SAWMILL ACCIDENT.

# , -~—— ONGABUE WORKER'S CLAIM. COMPANY'S ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE. | (By Telegraph.—Own Correspondent.) I HAMILTON, this day. An accident at the Ongarue sawmill in July of last year had its sequel in the Hamilton Supreme Court yesterday, when William Alexander Annan, sawmill worker. Ongarue. sued A. Broadbelt and Co., Ltd., sawmillers. for.£lo3o damages for injuries received whilst in their employ. Mr. V. J. O'Regan (Wellington) j appeared for claimant. -The statement of claim set out that on July 29, 192.1, plaintiff was employed cutting firewood for the engine in de-; fendant's sawmill, and was using a goose saw installed for the purpose, .when his i right hand came in contact with the saw, and he suffered in consequence the loss of the little and ring fingers of his right | hand, in addition to which the middle i finger and palm of the hand had been i seriously and permanently damaged. ■ Plaintiff claimed that the accident was due to negligence on the part of the defendant company, in that the goose saw was unsafe by reason of the manner in which it was installed, the saw being too close to the edge of the bench nearest which plaintiff was obliged to stand in the course of his work, for which reason the sawn pieces of wood did not drop off the bench as they were cut. but accumulated thereon. Further, it was alleged j that the saw was dull, for which reason | plaintiff was obliged to press the slabs j heavily against the saw. and the aceumiv lated pieces on the far side of the saw j necessitated additional pressure. It was j due to the act of pressing that plaintiff's I hand came in contact with the saw. The defendant company admitted liability under the Workers' Compensation Act, and was> making weekly payments to plaintiff, for which he had allowed defendants credit. Defendants denied that plaintiff suf- ■ fered the injuries described, in that j the palm of the hand had not been seri-1 ously or permanently damaged or injured in any way whatsoever. It was denied that the installation of the saw was defective, or that the saw was blunt, and it was held that plaintiff was not obliged in the course of his work to stand close to the edge of the bench, but did so negligently.