CLAIM FOR £3250 DAMAGES

Press, Volume LXXXVII, Issue 26511, 28 August 1951, Page 5

CLAIM FOR £3250 DAMAGES

LOSS OF EYE BY FARMER

SEAL BLOWN OFF DRUM OF MOLASSES

The hearing of a claim by Sidney Ernest Boyce, a farmer, of Dorie, near Rakaia, against Pyne, Gould, Guinness Limited, lor £3250 general damages and £134 13s 6d special damages, for the loss of an eye, caused by the seal of a drum of molasses blowing out, began in the Supreme Court yesterday before Mr Justice Northcroft and a jury. The hearing will be continued to-day. Sir Arthur Donnelly, and with him Mr J. A. Bretherton, is appearing for the plaintiff. Mr R. A. Young is appearing for the defendant. Mr R. W. Edgley, and with him Mr G. S. Orr, is appearing for Dalgety and Company, Limited, which has been joined as a defendant. Sir Arthur Donnelly, stating the plaintiff's case to the jury, said the plaintiff was 58 and had a farm of 314 acres. Many farmers used molasses in winter feed for stock and it was kept as stock food by companies, such as Pyne, Gould, Guinness, Limited, for sale in the ordinary course of business. Boyce always bought molasses in four-gallon tins at Rakaia. On May 26, 1948, he bought a four-gallon drum of molasses from Pyne, Gould, Guinness, Limited, at Rakaia. The following morning, Boyce went with his young son to open it. He tried to unscrew the cap but had to get a pipe-wrench to loosen it. He then shifted the pipe wrench to his other hand, unscrewed the cap, and saw there was a seal underneath. He bent over to pick up a screwdriver to force this inner seal open, when there was an explosion like a gun shot, the inner seal blew out and hit Boyce on the eye. Unfortunately the seal struck him right across the eye, cutting it badly and Boyce had to be taken to hospital. The sight of the eye was gone and, on August 24, the specialists decided it was too risky to leave it in as it might affect the sight of the other eye and it had to be removed. Sir Arthur Donnelly said the cause of the accident was that there was ar quantity of gas under powerful pressure in the drum and, when the top cap was taken off, the pressure was sufficient to blow out the inner seal. After the plaintiff was taken to hospital, his wife moved the drum into a shed and put the outer cap on again. The inner seal was found some distance away and it showed it had not been touched by any instrument. Hydrogen Found in Drum

About five months later, the drum and its contents were submitted to Mr Byfield, a consulting chemist, who would say he found in it a large quantity of hydrochloric acid, commercially called muriatic acid. In no circumstances could hydrochloric acid have been used in the manufacture of sugar, so it must have been introduced into the drum. The acid attacked the drum, forming free hydrogen gas which was trapped between the top of the molasses and the top of the drum at a pressure of between 300 and 4001 b to the square “The molasses was manufactured in Australia by the Queensland Molasses Company,’’ said Sir Arthur Donnelly. “In the ordinary way, the plaintiff would have sued the manufacturer who would have had no defence at all. But the plaintiff would have had to go to Australia and sue the company in an Australian Court. If the company had been fair and decent, it would have come into the Court in New Zealand and stood behind its product. A few years ago a big English sheep dip company did that. It came to New Zealand and stood behind its product in the Court. The Australian company has not done that but, rather discreditably, has left the defendants named to fight the claim. “The plaintiff is claiming against Pyne, Gould. Guinness, because that firm sold him the molasses. Pyne, Gould, Guinness in turn, say they should be indemnified by Dalgety and Company, Limited, who supplied them with the molasses. Dalgety and Company, in turn, can recover, with more difficulty, in Australia from the molasses company,’’ said Sir Arthur Donnelly. “A Valid Claim” Sir Arthur Donnelly said that the plaintiff had a valid claim. He relied on being supplied with a harmless tin of molasses and not a kind of bomb that exploded when the drum was being opened in the ordinary way. An implied condition of a sale was that goods should be of merchantable quality. This drum of molasses was not of merchantable quality, for it contained free gas. There was no moral blame to be imputed to Pyne, Gould, Guinness or Dalgety and Company, but the former was liable as it sold the drum of molasses to the plaintiff. . Sidney Ernest Boyce, the plaintiff; Russell Ernest Boyce, aged 13, his son; Catherine Isabel Boyce, the plaintiff’s wife; John William Russell Byfleld, a consulting chemist; and Harry Jenner Wales, an ophthalmic surgeon, gave evidence on the lines of counsel’s statement of the case. Case for Defendant

Mr Young, addressing the jury, said it was clearly apparent the plaintiff had suffered grievous injuries and, if he established his claim at law, he was entitled to substantial damages. Pyne, Gould, Guinness Ltd., claimed that it was the middleman, the retailer, and only passed on the drum of molasses from Dalgety and Company to the plaintiff. Pyne, Gould, Guinness had no idea the drum of molasses contained this dangerous defect and passed it on in good faith. Pyne, Gould, Guinness asked that, if the plaintiff succeeded in his claim, it be indemnified against Dalgety and Company. He would be calling the Government analyst who would give a different explanation for the explosion from that given by Mr Byfield, but the plain fact was that there was some gas in the drum which should not or could not have been there if the molasses had been properly manufactured and canned by the molasses company in Australia. “I submit the real blame should pass on to Dalgety and Company because

there was nothing Pyne, Gould, Guinness did or could have done to affect the molasses while the drum was in its possession,”- said Mr Young. Arthur Samuel Jacobs, in charge of all merchandise stocks at Christchurch for Pyne, Gould, Guinness Ltd.; Edwin Blake Skevington. storeman; Norman Patrick Alcorn, Government analyst at Christchurch; and Maurice Hunter, an analyst, gave evidence similar to counsel’s outline of the case. Case for Third Party Mr Edgley said that Dalgety and Company had to put Boyce and Pyne, Gould, Guinness to the proof. Though the accident occurred in May, 1948, Dalgety and Company did not hear of it until April, 1950. The defences were that Boyce was guilty of contributory negligence in opening the drum. Though the drum of molasses came from Dalgety and Company it was submitted that Pyne, Gould, Guinness negligently handled it and it was not m the condition it was when received from Australia. Two analysts would say the explosion could not have been caused by hydrochloric acid. Denis Thorpe Alexander, acting sales manager of the merchandise department of Dalgety and Company at Christchurch, gave evidence on shipments of molasses ordered by the company. The Court then adjourned until today.