Supreme Court Hit On Head By 500lb Weight: £2500 Claimed

Press, Volume CII, Issue 30092, 28 March 1963, Page 9

Supreme Court Hit On Head By 500lb Weight: £2500 Claimed

Far injuries suffered whale operating a block-making machine, Frederick Sydney Richard Bennett, of Lower Hutt claimed £2500 general damages against Vibrapac Blocks, Ltd., and the CablePrice Corporation, Ltd., in an action begun in the Supreme Court yesterday. Bennett, at the time of the accident, in June, 1959, was 25, and was employed by Vibrapac Blocks, Ltd. at its Hornby factory as a blockmakiing machine operator. He is now a factory foreman for Vibrapac Masonry, Ltd., at Lower Hutt. He claims that, as a result of the accident—in which he suffered a severe depressed fracture of the skull—he has almost completely lost his senses of taste and smell, has defective hearing in the right ear (with a “blocked,

ringing sensation’’), has headaches, and gets very tired. His case, which is being tried before Mr Justice Wilson and a jury, is conducted by Mr P. G. S. Penlington. Mr R. P. Thompson, with •him Mr C. B. Atkinson, appears for Vibrapac Blocks, and Mr P. T. Mahon for the Cable-Price Corporation. Claim Explained Mr Penlington said that Bennett’s job, with another machine operator, was to take turn about on the offbearer unit of a Beisser block-making machine. The off-bearer unit had a hoist, consisting of a wire rope 7ft to Bft long, anchored at one end, and with the off-bearer unit suspended at the other. Bennett had been operating the hoist when the wire rope broke suddenly, so that part of the off-bearer unit (weighing about 5001 b) struck him on the head, said Mr Penlington. “As a result, Bennett was very severely injured,” Mr Penlington said. “He was taken to hospital, where he was unconscious for two days. A week after the accident, an operation was performed, when it was found he had suffered a very severe depressed fracture of the skull.”

Bennett had been discharged from hospital at the end of June, and had been off work recuperating until September. Bennett alleged negligence by his employer, Vibrapac Blocks, Ltd., in failing to take reasonable care for his safety, said Mr Penlington. As particular grounds of negligence, it was alleged that the firm had supplied unsafe and dangerous plant, and had carried out an unsafe system of work and a negligent system of inspection of plant. Expert evidence would be called to say that the hoist of the block-making machine was of bad design, and not in accordance with basic engineering practice. The pulleys, for instance, were too small for the diameter of the rope, and the passing of

the wire rope through a reverse bend was not accepted

practice in that it caused undue metal fatigue. Furthermore, the wire rope, supplied by the Cable-Price Corporation, was not in accordance with the Besser company’s specifications, being only 8 x 19 instead of 6 x 37, and therefore of shorter fatigue life, Mr Penlington said. It was further alleged that Vibrapac Blocks had failed to replace the wire rope at sufficiently frequent intervals after a history of ropebreaking with the hoist of the block-making machine. Plaintiff’s Evidence Bennett then gave evidence along these lines. Cross-examined by Mr Thompson, Bennett agreed there had been more frequent maintenance inspections of the wire rope after it had first broken in March, 1057. He also agreed it was part of his job as an operator to keep an eye on the rope. He agreed further that the pulleys were always in firstclass condition when he inspected them when the rope was changed.

Bennett agreed that he now had better status, and better pay, in hi* job as a foreman than at the time of the acci-

dent. Bennett was also crossexamined briefly by Mr Mahon about wire ropes used in the hoist Workmate’s Evidence Evidence was given by Keith Charles Hamilton, a machine-operator with Vibrapac Blocks since 1958. Describing events after the accident to Bennett, he said that he examined the broken wire rope. “When I bent it, it crackled and if I’d bent it again, it would have broken in half,” be said. The rope had broken with him three or four weeks previously. He was just clear of the machine when it crashed to the concrete floor. His Honour: What caused it to do that. Hamilton: The rope broke. A new rope was put on, but it had not been changed before Bennett's incident, said Hamilton. These ropes were stiffer than the orginal Besser ropes. A month after Bennett’s accident a steel chain was substituted for wire rope.

At this stage the Court was adjourned, with Hamilton to be cross-examined this morning.