LOSS OF EYE BY FARMER

Press, Volume LXXXVII, Issue 26515, 1 September 1951, Page 8

LOSS OF EYE BY FARMER

JUDGMENT GIVEN FOR £3134 Judgment for Sidney Ernest Boyce, a farmer, of Dorie, for £3134 13s 6d against Pyne, Gould, Guinness, Ltd., ■with costs, was entered by Mr Justice Northcroft in the Supreme Court yesterday. Boyce was awarded £3OOO general damages by a jury on Tuesday for the loss of his right eye, caused when an explosion in a drum of molasses blew out the- inner seal of the drum on

May 27. IMB. His' Honour also entered judgment for Pyne, Gould, Guinness, Ltd., against Dalgety and Company, Ltd., the third party to the action, for the amount of damages and the plaintiff’s costs, but he would not allow Pyne, Gould. Guinness, Ltd., its own costs against Dalgety and Company, Ltd. Sir Arthur Donnelly, and with him Mr J. A. Bretherton, appeared for Boyce: Mr R. A. Young for Pyne, Gould, Guinness. Ltd., and Mr R. W. Edgley, and with him Mr G. S. Orr, for Dalgety and Company, Ltd. When the case concluded on Tuesday. his Honour, on the application of Mr Edgley, deferred entering judgment in accordance with the findings of the jury, pending legal submissions. Sir Arthur Donnelly moved for judgment for the plaintiff yesterday and then Mr Young moved for judgment for the defendant, Pyne. Gould. Guinness. Ltd. against the third pgrty, Dalgety and Company. Ltd. Mr Edgley submitted that Pyne. Gould, Guinness, Ltd., should not be allowed costs against Dalgety and Company. Ltd. Pyne, Gould. Guinness, Ltd., heard of the accident soon after it happened, but Dalgety and Company. Ltd., was not notified until two years later. No sample of the molasses was then available. The delay had serious results for Dalgety and Company, Ltd., for it affected its approach to the Queensland Molasses Company in Australia, and Dalgety and Company. Ltd., had been prejudiced in its negotiations to join the molasses company as a party to the action. His Honour said he had felt throughout the trial that the defendant, Pyne, Gould, Guinness. Ltd., was grossly to blame in knowing of the accident, and knowing throughout It could shoulder the responsibility on to its vendors, it did nothing, but allowed matters to drift on until, fortuitously, a sample of molasses could not be found and it was too late for the third narty to do anything in defence. The defendant company was casual in the extreme throughout, possibly because it knew it was not itself in any great danger. ~ For that reason the defendant company was not entitled to its costs against the third party.