Supreme Court £4906 Damages For Injured Watersider

Press, Volume XCVII, Issue 28540, 20 March 1958, Page 14

Supreme Court £4906 Damages For Injured Watersider

A former waterside worker was awarded £4906 16s 2d damages ir the Supreme Court yesterday for injuries to his knee, suffered when he was struck by a sling of bags of potatoes swung from a wharf crane working the steamei Karamu, at Lyttelton, on May 14 1956. A jury of 12, who heard the case before- Mr Justice Adams, found that the Union Steam Ship Company as the hirer of the Lyttelton Harbour Board’s crane, was responsible for the negligence ol both the crane driver and the hatchman at the time of the accident, and his Honour entered judgment against the company for the full amount of the damages granted: £3375 general damages (reduced from £4500), and £1531 16s 2d special damages (not disputed). Douglas Oliver Lindsay, aged 41, now a garage attendant, the plaintiff, was represented by Mr B. McClelland with him Mr A. D. Holland, the Union Steam Ship Company, the first defendant, by Mr R. W. Edgley; and the Lyttelton Harbour Board, the second defendant, by Mr C. G. Penlirigton, and with him Mr J. M. Matson. The question of which of the two defendants was, at the relevant moment, the master of the crane driver was an important one, said his Honour, in his summing up. The hatchman was the company’s employee; of that there was no question. But the crane driver was paid by the board to drive its crane, which was on hire to the company. Who Was Master? If the jury found that the company was the master, then the company would be liable for anj negligence by the crane driver its servant; but if the board was the master then the board would be liable, if negligence on the part of the crane driver was fount to be proved. “The question of his control a that time is a matter of fact foi your decision,” his Honour told the jury. Usually a workman had one employer, easily ascertainable, whe

was responsible for his acts. But sometimes an employee might be lent by his general employer to another employer who then became, in law, his temporary employer.

The burden of proof lay on the harbour board, as the general employer, to prove that at the relevant moment the shipping company, as the temporary employer, was responsible for the crane driver’s actions and therefore liable if he was found negligent, said his Honour.

The question for the jury to decide was which employer had the right to control the crane driver’s actions at the moment when the sling of cargo was poised above the hold, ready to be lowered. ✓ .

Although the crane-hiring agreement deemed the shipping company to be the temporary employer of the crane driver, this was not decisive, said his Honour, who quoted a House of Lords decision in a similar case, when it was held that while the terms of contract might colour the transaction, they could not determine its character. This clause was not conclusive; it did not bind the company.

The question of contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff did not arise in this case, he said.

The jury retired at midday, and returned with their verdict shortly after 3.30 p.m.