ACCIDENT ON SHIP

Press, Volume LXXXVI, Issue 26119, 23 May 1950, Page 3

ACCIDENT ON SHIP

WATERSIDER CLAIMS DAMAGES

The hearing of a claim by William Sinclair, a waterside worker, against the Union Steam Ship Company of New Zealand, Ltd., for £2OOO general damages and £7BO special damages for injuries suffered in an accident on May 12, 1948, began in the Supreme Court yesterday, before Mr Justice Northcroft and a jury. Mr T. A. Gresson, counsel for the plaintiff, who had with him Mr B. McClelland, outlined his case to the 1 jury, and Mr R. W. Edgley, counsel for the defendant, stated the case for the defence. The jury then went to i Lyttelton to view the Kaimanawa, the ship on which the accident happened.

The Court adjourned until the afternoon, and, when it resumed, the plaintiff and another witness gave evidence. Mr Gresson then asked leave, with the consent of defending counsel, to make submissions to his Honour in chambers. The application was granted. When the Court resumed, Mr Gresson said that the defendant company was prepared to admit liability for the accident, and the terms of a settlement had been arranged. There would be no need for the jury to be retained. The jury was discharged, and his Honour adjourned the case sine die. Statement of Claim In his statement of claim the plaintiff said he was aged 41. On May 12, 1948, when he was replacing a hatch cover on the Kaimanawa. at Lyttelton, he was struck and crushed by the hatch cover, his right lower leg being fractured and his left thigh being injured, resulting in his being permanently partially disabled. The plaintiff claimed that the accident was due to the negligence of the defendant company’s servants or agents in failing to exercise proper or adequate supervision while replacing the hatch cover, failing to exercise proper control of the winch, failing to observe or comply with the hatchman’s sig-i-i S ’ ? n d lowing the hatch cover to tall forward without first ensuring that the plaintiff was clear. Mr Gresson. outlining the case for the plaintiff, said that at the time of the accident Sinclair was one of a gang of waterside workers on the Kaimanawa who were replacing the hatch covers on the after hatch. There were six steel hatch lids instead of the usual wooden covers; three being large ones, 8 feet 6 inches wide and weighing about two tons each, and the other three being small ones. Two of the large lids had been lowered on to the hatch and the third was standing on its edge between the hatch coaming and the bridge deck. Sinclair was handed a pin and wire strop to give to a man on the bridge deck, who would attach them to the lid so that the winch would control the lowering of the lid. Sinclair stepped from the deck on to the coaming, walked along, stepped on to one of the ribs on the under side of the lid, reached up and handed the pin and wire to a man on the bridge deck. As Sinclair made to return to the deck, the lid came over, nipped his right leg against the coaming and broke it, and badly crushed his left thigh. Control was regained over the lid and it was pulled up to the peroendicular. Sinclair had been off wonk for two years and it was questionable whether he would be able to return to waterside work. Counsel for Defence Mr Edgley said that the three small hatch lids leaned back against a bulkhead but the three large ones stood up straight because they protruded above the bridge deck. The defendant contended that the pin and wire should be attached to the lid by a man on the bridge deck and not by a man climbing from the hatch coaming on to ihe lid. If Sinclair had gone on to the bridge deck he would have been perfectly safe. The weight of a man on the lid would make it fall because it was so finely balanced. It was quite unnecessary and quite improper for Sinclair to have gone on the coaming and then climbed on the lid. The plaintiff, in evidence, described the accident on the ship. His wages for the 12 months before the accident were approximately £650. He had been paid £5 10s a week worker’s compensation by the company right up to the present. Thomas Bachop, a waterside worker, gave supporting evidence. At this stage the jury was discharged and the case adjourned sine die.