LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES

Press, Volume C, Issue 29552, 29 June 1961, Page 10

LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES

Argument Burt Heard Legal argument whether the J Lyttleton Harbour Board of ] I the Union Steam Ship Com- i pany of New Zealand should 1 ifee held liable to pay the • Manages awarded by a jury ; to a watersider injured while i working at Lyttelton was i heard by Mr Justice Rich- ] mond in the Supreme Court y psf y The hearing arose from < ■ claim for damages heard by his Honour and a jury in < which John Douglas Jarden, a watersider. claimed £B5OO general and £742 16s 9d ape- i cial damages. Jarden was < hurt while working in the < hold of the Waknate when a > bag of piaster fell from a ' aling ot a crane and hit him. i The jury awarded Jarden J £4BOO general damages and j the special damage* agreed l on, finding that the accident < was caused by the crane dri- 1 Harbour! Board, owner of the crane, < ■xag Turned as first detwwl* | land, owner of the Waimate. i as second defendant ! At ttm hearing yesterday. i Mr R. P. Th*tnp*on.with i him Mr C. B. Atkinson, ap- J pea red for the Harbour '. Board and Mr R. W, Edgley < for the shipping company, i By consent, his Honour j ordered that the money paid : into court by the shipping j company, as second defend- 1 ant'be paid to Jarden's soli- J citers. Mr B- McClelland ap- ’ peared for Jarden, but was i granted leave to withdraw .1 by his Honour after evidence ‘ concerning the fact*, on ‘ which argument between the i first and second defendants J was based; had .been heard, j Ground* of Argument < It was agreed by counsel and his Honour that the J grounds of argument to de- t termine the liability of the ■ Harbour Board, or the ship- 1 pmg company, to pay the , damages to Jarden were: r Whether the crane driver « was under the control of the ! Harbour Board or the ship- i ping company at the time Of I Hie accident. •'! Whether, under the com- ! ‘bined effect# of the Harbour ! Board’s by-law* (a* by-laws I or as contractual terms) pltrf|; the application form sighed J by the shipping company for < use of the Harbour Board’s J crane, the Harbour Board : was entitled to indemnity , against any damage* claimed i against it, * Whether an Implied term I of the hiring of the crane by j the shipping company from J the Harbour Board was that J -the driver should be reasonably competent, and whether < the particular driver was competent to' all the cfrcam- | Mance*. ”*t w < Legal argument bad not been completed when hi* ‘ Honour adjourned the hear- |