JURY AWARDS £3000

Press, Volume LXXXVII, Issue 26512, 29 August 1951, Page 5

JURY AWARDS £3000

LOSS OF EYE BY FARMER CASE ADJOURNED FOR LEGAL SUBMISSIONS A jury in the Supreme Court yesterday awarded Sidney Ernest Boyce, a farmer, of Dorie, near Rakaia, £3OOO general damages and £134 13s 6d special damages in his claim against Pyne, Gould, Guinness, Limited, for the loss of his right eye, caused by the seal of a drum of molasses blowing out On the application of counsel for the third party to the action, Mr Justice Northcroft deferred entering judgment The jury found that the injury was caused by an explosion in the tin of molasses, bought by Boyce from Pyne, Gould, Guinness, Ltd.; that the goods were not of merchantable quality, that the explosion was caused by fermentation due to excessive moisture causing gases; ‘ that Pyne, Gould, Guinness, Ltd., bought the four-gallon drum of molasses from the third party, Dalgety and Company, Ltd., shortly before selling it to Boyce; that Pyne, Gould, Guinness was not negligent; and that the same condit ions of sale applied between Dalgety and Company, Ltd., and Pyne, Gould,"’Guinness, Ltd., as applied between Pyne, Gould, Guinness, Ltd.,

and Boyce. Sir Arthur Donnelly, v<ith whom was Mr J. A. Bretherton, moved for judgment for Bbyce against Pyne, Gould. Guinness, Ltd. Mr R. A. Young, counsel for Pyne, Gould, Guinness, Ltd., moved for judgment against the third party, Dalgety and Company, Ltd. Mr R. W. Edgley, counsel for Dalgety and Company, Ltd., moved that the case be adjourned for further consideration of the jury's findings and for him to consider legal argument. His Honour granted this application. The hearing began on Monday, the plaintiff claiming £3250 general damages and £134 13s 6d special damages. When the hearing was resumed yesterday, Mr. Edgley called Ernest Rogers, head storeman at Christchurch for Dalgety and Company, Ltd.;, Brian Charles Painter, a lecturer in chemistry at Canterbury University College; Alfred Rex O’Reilly, a stqreman clerk at Wellington for Dalgety and Company Ltd.; and Gibert Alexander Lawrence, consulting chemist, of Johnsonville; to give evidence. Mr Painter and Mr Lawrence said the explosion could not have been caused by hydrochloric acid generating gas. but said it could have been caused by fermentation giving rise to carbon dioxide gas. That concluded the eviderre for the third party. Addresses by Counsel

Mr Edgley, addressing the jury, said Dalgety and Company, Ltd., had no opportunity of knowing what happened to the drum of molasses after it arrived in New Zealand and passed into the hands of Pyne, Gould, Guinness. Ltd. The point with which Dalgety and Company. Ltd., was concerned was the evidence of the analysts. On the evidence, the jury were entitled to infer that the explosion was not due to hydrochloric acid but to fermentation. It was quite possible that in the Rakaia store of Pyne, Gould, Guinness, Ltd., some repacking of the molasses might have taken place. That was a suggestion, though there was no evidence to support it, and they were entitled to find negligence on the part of Pyne, Gould, Guinness, Ltd. The defendant company had come to Court with evidence that was worthless; it had coasted along with the plaintiff and tried to shelve the responsibility on to the third party, - Dalgety and Company, Ltd. Counsel submitted that it was open to the jury to find that if anything occurred to the drum of molasses it occurred in New Zealand while the drum was under the control of Pyne, Gould, Guinness, Ltd. Mr Young said he would suggest that it had clearly emerged that Pyne, Gould, Guinness, Ltd., sold the drum of molasses to the plaintiff and it was equally clear that Dalgety and Company, Ltd., had sold the drum to Pyne, Gould, Guinness, Ltd., not long before. The evidence made it quite clear that the drum of molasses was not of merchantable quality or it would not have exploded. On behalf of Pyne, Gould, Guinness, Ltd., he withdrew the allegation that there was any contributory negligence on the part of Boyce. Pyne, Gould, Guinness, Ltd., in the ordinary course of business bought drums of molasses and resold them and there was never anything to indicate that such a drum might explode; so how could Pyne, Gould, Guinness, Ltd., be negligent? It did not matter whether the explosion was due to acid or fermentation; but there was a concentration of gas of some kind in the drum and there was an explosion. There was no' evidence that the plaintiff or Pyne, Gould, Guinness, Ltd., did anything to affect the contents of the drum, Pyne, Gould, Guinness, Ltd., was the logical company to sue and if judgment was given against the company, it could sue Dalgety and Company, Ltd., and the latter could claim against the Queensland Molasses Company in Australia. Sir Arthur Donnelly said the plaintiff’s claim was against Pyne, Gould, Guinness, Ltd., alone. The question whether Pyne, Gould, Guinness, Ltd., should be indemnified by Dalgety and Company, Ltd., did not concern the plaintiff. Sir Arthur Donnelly said he appreciated the withdrawal by Pyne, Gould, Guinness of the allegation of negligence against the plaintiff. He submitted that the jury did not need to decide which chemical theory about the explosion was right. An explosion did occur when it should not and the plaintiff lost his eye as a result. The jury would have to say what was fair compensation for the loss of the plaintiff’s eye and his suffering over the last three years. He had spent three months in hospital before the specialists decided to remove the eye because it was in a damaged condition and might have been a danger to the other eye. He would be under constant medical supervision probably as long as he Ihred. By their verdict the jury i would fix the plaintiff’s compensation i once and for all. Even if his good eye l did become affected he could not

come back to Court for further compensation. His Honour summed up and several issues were put to the jury. The jury retired at 3.15 p.m. and returned at 5.5 pm. with their findings.