Supreme Court DEFENCE OPENED IN SHUNTER’S CLAIM

Press, Volume XCVIII, Issue 28936, 2 July 1959, Page 7

Supreme Court DEFENCE OPENED IN SHUNTER’S CLAIM

“Serious allegations are made by the plaintiff against the Railways Department and some of its employees,” said Mr P. T. Mahon, opening the defence in the Supreme Court yesterday when the hearing of the claim for £22,500 accident damages against the Attorney-General, brought by William Bryce, a former head shunter, was continued. The claim is before Mr Justice Haggitt and a jury.

The case will enter its fourth day this morning when it resumes after a jury inspection of the scene of the accident to Bryce at the Addington railways yards. Bryce lost both his legs and suffered arm and shoulder injuries when he fell beneath a moving rake of waggons while uncoupling them. He claims he fell after his foot had jammed in a switch point through stepping on boarding over the pionts which gave way He alleges negligence by the Railways Department in permitting defective boarding and failing to maintain adequate inspection to detect it.

Mr E. D. Blundell, of Wellington. and Mr B. McClelland are appearing for Bryce, and Mr Mahon and Mr C. M. Roper for the Attorney-General. “Railways Not Responsible”

“When you have heard the defence evidence I suggest you will be satisfied that this tragic accident which occurred to Mr Bryce was something for which the Railways Department or its employees are in no way responsible,” Mr Mahon told the jury. Evidence would be given by Mr A. P. Burney, senior signalling and shunter instructor for the Railways Department, Wellington, that it was bad practice to straddle the rail between moving waggons, said Mr Mahon.

“You will be listening to the evidence not of a shunter who is a workmate of the plaintiff but a man who has been placed in his position because of his long practical experience as a shunter “When you have heard his evidence you will realise that not to straddle the rail is just one of those rules of ordinary common sense, an obvious rule which, of course, is broken no doubt quite often by shunters in the course of their duties.

“And, of course, they do so at their own risk,” Mr Mahon said. “The only difficulty when you didn’t comply with the obvious rule of safety—whether it is shunting between moving waggons or driving a motor-car on the highway—is that you might get away with it over a. period of years but the day will come when your disregard of it leads you into trouble, and that, of course, is what happened here.” Mr Mahon said. Case for Defence

‘‘The plaintiff’s claim rests basically upon unduly wide clearance at the switch points and upon the allegedly springy board that was adjacent to them.” said Mr Mahon.

Defence witnesses would say that the fact that the end of the plank bent when trod on was something which was not reasonably observable by the railway ganger or his staff in the course of an ordinary inspection. “In fact they will agree with the shunters who have given evidence that it was a thing you would not notice,” Mr Mahon said.

“As to the clearance between the points blade and the rail, evidence will be given that the clearance was 4Jin; that there is nothing unusual about a gap of that width; that the clearance must be a minimum of 4in for technical reasons; and that it is standard practice in railway systems in other countries to have clearances of 4in plus—in fact, in certain countries the standard clearance is 41in, 41in. and so on.” said Mr Mahon.

“A clearance of over 4in is something that is essential for the proper working of any railway system, and is one of those features every railways employee has to recognise and get along with in the course of his work,” said Mr Mahon. Ganger’s Evidence

Robert Evan Gill, a ganger, with 20 years’ service on the railways, said he was in charge of that section of line where the accident occurred—a distance of 1? miles from Montreal street to Matipo street, and including the Addington yards. In that section, 10 sets of points were boarded over for shunters’ safety, although the majority of points were not boarded.

When he was inspecting the scene of the accident, his attention was drawn to the board alleged to be faulty. It sank down about an inch when stepped upon and then sprang back. He found the end of the board was about fin below the level of the rest of the boarding.

He had not known about the condition of this board before the accident, Gill said.

“Had you known the end of the board sank when you stepped on

it, would you have done anything about it?” asked M. Mahon. “I would have removed it and replaced it,” said Gill. Gill said he had received no complaints from shunters about the board, or any other board in th’ Addington yards. Questioned by Mr Blundell, Gill said he knew shunters placed a foot across the rail, and agreed that anything in the nature of a trap for them should be removed and emedied as soon as possible. “Do you make a point of examining the points each day?” asked Mr Blundell. “Yes,” said Gill.

Mr Blundell: Is your examination just visual or do you do anything else? Gill: Visual. Mr Blundell: Just visual? Gill: Yes.

Gill said he did not “jump” on individual planks. He might walk across planks to test switches. “Element of Risk”

Although he appreciated that shunters would from time to time be stepping between rails, there was always an element of risk present, said John George Heads, an inspector of permanent way at the time of the accident, and now retired fjom the railways. He told Mr Blundell that it was part of a ganger’s job to see that boarded areas over points where shunters worked were kept in a safe condition.

Mr Blundell: Would you agree it is of imperative importance that these men should have a safe footing, as far as it is possible to give it to them? Heads: Yes.

That is what gangers are there to advise?—Yes, besides their track ,»-ork.

Heads agreed it would be their duty to replace defective boarding over points.

Over the years he had seen shunters putting a foot over the rail to uncouple waggons. Heads said.

“Whatever might have been the original purpose of putting down boards over points, once they were there shunters are justified in using them?” asked Mr Bundell.

“That is correct,” said Heads

When inspecting the scene of the accident he had stood on the end of the board claimed to be defective. It was cracked, and sank down at one end, but sprang up when the weight was taken off.

His Honour: Did you stand on it because you noticed it obviously had a crack in it? Heads: Yes.

If he had known about the condition of the board before the accident, he would not have allowed it to remain there, Heads said.

Inspector’s Evidence

Detailed evidence on safety procedure on shunting was given by Arnold Peter Burney, for seven years a senior signalling and shunting instructor at Wellington.

When lifting the coupling hooks between moving waggons, a shunter’s feet should be outside the rail, said Burney. “In between rails we have numerous points, frogs, and crossings, and all these are potential shunting hazards.” Burney said.

“If a shunter steps over the rail he is walking on ground that he isn’t able to see. By keeping his feet outside the rail the ground on which he is going to walk is continually in his view.” To Mr Blundell, he agreed that shunting was a hazardous occupation—“if performed without observing the safety rules.” -urney said he had 30 years’ experience of shunting and had been head shunter.

When working on shunting yards, he had never put his foot over the rail—“l had too much thought for my own personal safety.”

His Honour: What did you do when you got a truck that jammed?

Burney replied that the method was to stop the train.

His Honour: That delays the shunting? Burney: Yes, out one takes no account of delays to shunting where the safety factor is involved. That is our first consideration.

When Mr Blundell suggested that Burney must have seen “hundreds and hundreds” of shunters put a foot across the rail, Burney said he had not. It was “very rarely done.”

Burney: Oh, yes. Mr Blundell: But not when you've been about?

Burney: I haven’t seen shunting in Christchurch.