Supreme Court Allocation Of Blame For Accident Discussed

Press, Volume XCIX, Issue 29221, 3 June 1960, Page 16

Supreme Court Allocation Of Blame For Accident Discussed

A jury in the Supreme Court yesterday heard counsel for the Railways Department say that the Union Steam Ship Company, Ltd., was to blame for an accident which injured a watersider; then the jury heard counsel for the shipping company say that the Railways Department was to blame.

Evidence to support both these points of view was led when the hearing continued before Mr Justice Macarthur of a claim for £1250 general and £6BO 3s 2d special damages by Harry Williams, aged 55, a watersider, for injuries suffered when he was struck by a flying capstan hook which broke his right leg on No. 7 wharf at Lyttelton on June 3, 1958. Mr B. McClelland, with him Mr A. D. Holland, appears for the plaintiff; Mr C. M. Roper for the Attorney-General, through the Railways Department, named as first defendant; and Mr R. W. Edgley for the Union Steam Ship Company, Ltd., named as second defendant

Evidence for the shipping company was still being given when the Court adjourned until today. Evidence for the plaintiff, given on Wednesday, was that the plaintiff was injured when a rake of three waggons was being hauled off the wharf by a capstan, driven by an electric motor, hauling on a rope and book attached to one of the waggons. The hook flew off the waggon and hit the plaintiff. A metal sidebracket, used for tying-down loads on the waggon and sheeting on tarpaulins, came off the waggon. First Defendant Opening for the Railways Department yesterday, Mr Roper said it was not disputed that the plaintiff had his leg broken by the flying capstan hook. But no blame could attach to the Railways Department because the ropeman, who had tried to move the rake of trucks by attaching the hook to the bracket instead of the towing D on the waggon, was an employee of the shipping company.

Evidence for the Railways Department would be that the towing hook should be placed on the D bracket and nowhere else. The bracket on which the towing Hook

had been placed was built to take a vertical strain, not a horizontal one, and the cause of the accident was the fault of the ropeman.

“The towing D’s in the waggon in question were inspected after the accident and found to be in good order. The ropeman, an employee of the shipping company, was at fault in not putting the towing hook on the D. and the plaintiff should look to the shipping company for damages,” counsel concluded. Use of Brackets Called by Mr Roper, Rennell Ernest Ballinger, a sub-foreman employed by the Railways Department, said the D brackets on Uwaggons were placed there for hauling. The tying-down side brackets were definitely not for hauling purposes, and he had frequently checked men for putting towing hooks on the side brackets instead of the D brackets. Cross-examined by Mr Edgley, witness said he had never known a D bracket to come away when a waggon was being towed. Counsel produced part of a D bracket, and witness said the D brackets on some U-waggons were fixed to wood. Using the D bracket was the correct mehod of hauling waggons. He knew of no written instructions from the Railways Department to watersiders to this effect. He had never known a tying bracket to pull away before the accident. Witness said that on rare occasions the ropes provided by the railways might not be long enough to stretch from the capstan to a D bracket. William Alexander Dey, of Dunedin, a railways waggon Inspector, said the two towing D’s on the U-waggon in question were in good order when he inspected them in August, 1958. At that time all the side brackets were on the waggon, one appearing as though it had been recently rebolted. To Mr Edgley, witness said one towing D had been slightly distorted by a hard knock. He did not think this would cause a ropeman to avoid using the D. Leonard Arthur Gilmour, railways sub-foreman, said he had worked on the Lyttelton wharf for 20 years and had never seen a U-waggon hauled by a side bracket. The D bracket was for hauling purposes. Second Defendant Outlining the case for the Union Steam Ship Company, Ltd., Mr Edgley said that the company was not to blame. The accident was simply caused by a very defective side bracket on the U-waggon, the fault of the Railways Department.

Counsel said he would call on subpoena watersiders who were working with the plaintiff when the accident happened and other people who were familiar with working practices on the wharves. All these persons would say that it was a common, regular and accepted practice to haul waggons by the side-brackets and that they had

never been checked by any railways employee for doing this and never told not to do it.

‘‘You must think it strange that the plaintiff has not called evidence from the railwaymen who were working with him or near him.” counsel said.

“I suggest that the plaintiff has not given a truthful account of what happened. The evidence I will call will show that the plaintiff was not busy tying down a load on a waggon as he said, and that he was given a warning, although he denies it, before the accident happened. “Simply, our case is that the plaintiff's story of what happened, and his trying to put the blame on the shipping company because the ropeman acted wrongly in putting the hook on the side bracket, does not hold water.

“Our case is that the plaintiff put this story forward because it was the most feasible one to explain the accident. The evidence will be that side bra kets have been used through the years without objection from the railways and that a side bracket has never broken before the one which caused injury to the plaintiff,” counsel concluded.

He called Andrew Barclay Miller, a foreman employed by the Union Steam Ship Company, Ltd., for the last four years, who was on duty at the Kopua when the plaintiff was injured. Witness said side-brackets had been used daily to haul waggons. The waggons were still being hauled by the side brackets. The ropeman was under his control, but he had never told the ropeman not to do

this. The D- brackets were for hauling, but on occasions the capstan rope was not long enough to the D brackets.

“I would not correct a ropeman for putting the capstan hook on a side bracket. I have put the hook on them myself,” witness concluded. Other witnesses, employed on the waterfront by shipping companies and the Lyttelton Harbour Board, gave evidence that side brackets had been and still were frequently used for hauling.

Walter Smith said he was ropeman at the time of the accident. He had frequently used the side bracket in U-waggons to tow them and still did. After the accident he told the then Railways Department superintendent for the port, a Mr Scott, about it. Scott had told witness that he himself had used side brackets to tow waggons. Mr Roper objected to this evidence. Witness said that two months after the accident he saw » D bracket on a waggon break under tow from a capstan. He picked this D bracket up, and it was the one produced in Court.