Supreme Court £9212 CLAIMED BY LABOURER FOR BACK INJURY

Press, Volume CI, Issue 29776, 20 March 1962, Page 9

Supreme Court £9212 CLAIMED BY LABOURER FOR BACK INJURY

A man who was struck on the back by a heavy wooden hammer when the handle broke during reinforcing work on the sides of a sewer excavation at the intersection of Moorhouse avenue and Colombo street on October 7, 1959, claimed general and special damages of £9212 7s 9d in the Supreme Court yesterday. The plaintiff, Thomas Andrew Clare, aged 58, formerly a labourer employed by the Wilkins and Davies Construction Company, Ltd., is claiming £7500 general damages and £1712 7s 9d special damages from the company. The action is being heard before Mr Justice Richmond and a jury. Mr R. J. de Gold! appears for the plaintiff and Mr B. McClelland, with him Mr A. D Holland, for the defendant. The hearing was adjourned to today after six witnesses for the plaintiff had been heard. Plaintiff’s Case

Mr de Goldi, outlining the plaintiff's claim, said the plaintiff was one of a gang of five employees of the defendant on the sewer excavation. Because of the depth of the trench it was necessary to support the sides with timber. A wooden hammer, or maul, with a wooden handle was being used to drive the timber planks into tire ground. The foreman of the gang, David Graham, was hammering a plank into position while standing on a 44-gallon drum when the accident occurred. The plaintiff was below Graham in the trench, which was 6ft or 7ft deep, to hold the timber in place. When the blow was being struck the handle broke and the hammer head fell on to the plaintiff, injuring him in the lower part of the back He was knocked to the ground, and was in considerable pain.

Medical evidence would be given that the plaintiff’s injuries were not only serious but lasting, said Mr "de Goldi.

He said the plaintiff alleged the defendant was negligent in using a hammer and handle unsuitable for the

work required of it, failing to provide the plaintiff with protective clothing, failing to provide suitable platforms at various levels for the employee driving in the timber, and in exposing the plaintiff to danger by requiring him to work immediately below a point where a heavy hammer was being used. “Because of injuries to his spine and arteries the plaintiff has suffered a reduced expectation of life, and medical evidence will be given that since the accident he has been a candidate for sudden death,” he said. Plaintiff’s Evidence

The plaintiff gave evidence along the lines of Mr de Goldi's opening. He said that after being struck by the hammer head he was paralysed down the left leg. He was helped out of the trench and taken home.

The plaintiff said he tried to resume working two or three times after the accident, but was unable to carry on. His back was painful and his leg swollen. He had done labouring and heavy manual jobs all his working life, and was not experienced in office or other light employment. The plaintiff said that in the two weeks that he worked on the contract five maul handles broke. Keith Poultrey, now of Auckland, said that three or four other maul handles broke before the accident. They were cross-grained, and split down the handles.

“I told Graham on one occasion about the handles breaking. I told him they were crook and crossgrained,” he said. Cross-examined, he agreed that he went on working with similar types of mauls after one which he was using had broken.

A sewerage contractor, William John Morris, was

called to give evidence as to procedures generally used in trench excavations.

He said that sheathing hammers, worked by compressors. were mostly used for hammering the timber into position because it was usually too difficult to drive the timber with mauls. Mauls were usually used only on sandy or other light country. Morris said his firm had had a lot of trouble with maul handles breaking. These had been replaced by metal pipe handles, and this had solved the problem. The witness said that the use of the 44-gallon drum as a striking platform was a bit dangerous, although they were used quite a lot by contractors. During cross-examination Morris said it was common in his experience, where mauls were being used, for the contractor to provide slats of wood across the top of trenches to protect workmen holding the timber in place while it was being hammered. Medical Evidence Dr. W. H. Brockett gave evidence of the injuries suffered by the plaintiff in the accident. He said the plaintiff’s condition had deteriorated from the point of view of walking and "getting about.” He suffered constant pain in his leg which was aggravated by walking, and he was unfit for any work whatever. Dr. R. Blunden, an orthopaedic surgeon, said the plaintiff had been referred to him by Dr. Brockett. He considered the plaintiff was unfit for work unless light enough employment could be found. He could not walk any distance, and any undue exertion would possibly increase the clotting in the aorta, the main artery of the body. “The clotting could even spread to the other leg and lead to gangrene,” the witness said.