Supreme Court Awarded £14,269

Press, Volume XCVIII, Issue 28937, 3 July 1959, Page 12

Supreme Court Awarded £14,269

Damage* of £14.269 against the Attorney-General rake of waggons at theCAddington railway yards on August 3, 1957.

Mr Justice Hsggitt deferred entering judgment for the amount tor 21 days to allow the Crown to move for a verdict in its favour

or SM* trial./? 1 The amount of Wff dama«« is thought to *** largest sum ever awarded in the Christchurch Supreme Court. Bryce claimed £22,80) general SMwIS&SSw£ Railways DapartaaenV in permitting detective °, v o 9 switch points on which he had stepped and jammed his foot causing to fall lender the wag--B°The jury awarded Bryce £19.800 general damages and the £1036 special damages agreed upon reduced by gg per . cent for points.• ♦<• 'SI > .U’-uh i.-i - "Severity of lajarter ’ to In summing up, Mr Justice Haggitt told the jUry that it was impossible to minimise the severity of Bryce’s injuries, and if it held the Railways Department negligent, it must award him a substantial sum.

The mere fact that an accident happened at work did not entitle a person as of right to damages for injury. Negligence by the employer had to be proved and the onus of proof lay with the plaintiff, said his Honour. Hie jury was almost five hours considering its verdict, which was not given until 10 p.m. The jury found the Railways Department negligent in not maintaining the boarding over the points in a safe Condition, but not negligent in permitting a slightly wider than usual gap between the points blade and the rail. It found, however, that permitting combination of the defective boarding and the gap amounted to negligence. The jury found Bryce not negligent in putting his left foot over the rail on to the boarding while uncoupling the waggons. It rejected the defence allegations that Bryce was walking backwards when so doing, and that he placed his foot directly into the switch points. Bryce was found negligent in failing to keep a look-out for the switch’s presence.

Mr E. D. Blundell, of Wellington, and Mr B. McClelland appeared for Bryce, and Mr P. T. Mahon and Mr C. M. Roper for the Attorney-General.

Senior Engineer’s Evidence In examining 16 boarded areas out . of 46 in the Christchurch yards, he had found one board over switches which had an unsupported 30in-overhaag th* end, which sank riin when trodden on. and which sprang back when weight Was released, said Llewellyn Charles Livingstone Price, a senior railways engineer, who was the main witness heard yesterday. The board was also Ijin below the rest of -the decking, and was split longitudinally. "I also found other boards that were split or crushed. These had obviously been in this condition for many months. In my opinion, they were no hazard,” said Price. Price also said he had inspected the scene of the accident, where he took measurements to prepare plans. The gap between the boarding and the switch point was 4jin. The standard gap in the United States was 4|ln and in Britain 4jin.

Questioned by Mr Blundell, Price agreed the gap at the accident seene had increased fin since the switch points were put in. “Is that not a thing which a ganger should inquire into?” asked Mr Blundell. “I believe he would,” Price said.

Mr Blundell: And would you believe that he should? Price: It is a moot point whether a person looking at the switch would decide whether It was 4in or 4fin on first inspection. Further questioned. Price said he was unable to say if uncoupling work was done in the places where he had seen cracked and crushed boards in the Christchurch yards. “I put it to you that the cracked boards were in places where no uncoupling work is done?” .Mr Blundell said.

Inspection by Ganger Price agreed it was a ganger’s duty to inspect the condition of switch point boarding, but said it could be done visually.

Showing' Price a photograph of the scene of the accident, Mr Blundell pointed out that the board complained of was cracked longitudinally was was “obviously” cracked sideways. “Don’t you agree that a board in that condition merited closer inspection?” asked Mr Blundell.

I **l fed that that ia a matter of opinion,” replied Price. H a ganger is going to let a board like that go, what real purpose is he achieving In neakin. the board is serving its tetow yes. 4 Pressed for an admission that the ganger should step on such a board or otherwise test its soundness, Price Said: "If th. board is damaged to the extant shown in the photograph, I agree.” Price was then asked whether he agreed with the two defence witnesses (the ganger and the toipwiur or ptrminfnt wayr Who had both said that had they seen the board they would have had it replaced. ;;r • .ftor Price: M I found it teu that condition, Salary ProoMto Graham McMillan, a Iteuwan Department staff officer, gave evidence of Bryce’s sglanr prospects in his present clerical position In the salaried division, asepSopered with fhe rates of pay M would have got in the general dfvisien of the railways. “Over-all, his position with re-

gard to basic rates of salary is better than ft would have been In the general division. On the other hand, the amount ofoy ertime earned in the -easartH division is less than is eerMfia the general division,” MeMM said. To Mr Blundell, McMillan said he accepted the figures that be* overtime), and was new receiving <l4 Is lOd. and receiving no had 18 years’ service in tM gta» end division, and had feMt granted only five years* seniority in the Salaried division, so that in effect he had lost 13 years’ seniority.

Defence Submissions “In my view, this is a grossly over-stated amount which the plaintiff has claimed,** /Br Mahon told the jury in his flail, address. / On the evidence of winnoM, £lOO a year would cover Bryee’s expenses for artificial limits and replacements, wear and tear on clothing, and car transport But £22.500 invested at th» current rate of 5 per cent interest would yield him an income of £1125 a year. ' • » . “He would have a net unearned income of £lOOO a year in addition to his salary the railways.’’ said Mr Mahon. * There was doubt or to how the accident really happened. DM the defective -hpaiM MMT eaute it? Mr MahonUi*. ” Nobody bad evdr noticed the board which every witness had admitted was defective. None of the shunters had noticed it or complained about it Bryce claimed his foot had jammed at the board but his shoe was actually found wedged in the switch points. There Was no real explanation as to how Ms

planted his foot into the opal gap in the, switch,’’ said Mr Mahon. Bryce had put his fooiTovW the rail and even if shunter! had given evidence that it wal a common practice, was it a safe and sound ope? “To say it Is a safe practice is absurd. It is a careless practice and it caused the. qfcident,’’ Mr Mahon said. Case ter the Plaintiff

The crux of the case was the actual cause of the accident, and on that Bryce was quite dear, said Mr Blundell. He had aald he put his foot over the rail on to the board and felt something give. That indicated he had put his foot on the board and net directly into the switch.

Bryce had only put his foot across the rail, and in the place where he did, because the coupling hook had stuck. He knew it would be perfectly safe to put his loot on to the board-ing-provided it was sound—and it was common practice for shunters to put a foot over the rail when uncoupling. “Should not reasonable inspection have detected that board?" asked Mr Blundell. . - , . Witnesses inspecting the scene of the accident picked that the board needed looking at without knowing it had anything to do with the accident. How much more was it so that the man whose duty it was to inspect the yards should have detected it? said Mr Blundell.