SUPREME COURT Defence Case Opened In £45,000 Damages Claim

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31343, 13 April 1967, Page 10

SUPREME COURT Defence Case Opened In £45,000 Damages Claim

A defence party in an injured watenider’s Supreme Court claim for £45,000 damages submitted yesterday that it was too big. Mr K. P. Thompson, for the Lyttelton Harbour Board, conceded that the plaintiff, Richard Hampstead, was entitled to substantial damages, “but not to the order of £45,000.” “The amount you should award should be nothing like that,” Mr Thompson said to the jury. Hampstead suffered a broken spine, and was crippled from the waist down, after being struck by a heavy cargo tray which became dislodged from a crane hook and fell 40ft down the hold of the cargo vessel Elin Haven in which he was working on June L 1965. Mr Thompson, opening the case for the Lyttelton Harbour Board, before Mr Justice Wilson and the jury, acknowledged that the accident had been contributed to by a momentary lapse by its crane-driver—-who had been so shattered, by the accident that he had given up work on the wharves. The crane-driver, Lester John Baxter, himself gave evidence that after the accident he had just sat still in the cab until another driver relieved him, then had climbed down and never driven a crane again. Hatchman’s Duties But the Harbour Board alleged liability for the accident by Kinsey and Company’s hatchman, said Mr Thompson. “The presence of a 'hatchman properly carrying out his duties would have prevented this accident,” he said. The board had hired its crane to one or other of the other defendant parties, Kinsey and Company or Pitcaithly’s, Ltd. “It doesn’t matter which,” Mr Thompson said.

But once the crane was in operation, it became the hatchman’s sole duty to direct the driver to ensure efficient unloading of cargo and the welfare of the watersider gang, especially those working below. The hatchman had failed in his duty in several respects, said Mr Thompson. He had failed to watch the incoming cargo tray, and was instead talking to a representative of Gordon and Gotch, Ltd., whose goods were being unloaded. He had allowed the tray to come over the hatch when men were working directly below. He had failed to warn the crane-driver of the likelihood of men being there. And he had disregarded the warning given him to “watch for a swinging tray.” Baxter, the crane-driver, in evidence said that he relied on the hatchman to guide him, and obeyed all signals given. If he as a driver were “going wrong,” he expected the hatchman to stop him. The accident had happened with the first tray in with the relieving hatchman, a man named Wells, said Baxter. “I was going with the tray into the hold. I thought I was goins all right, and so I automatically kept going until I was told to stop. The next thing, the tray bumped the side of the hatch ' coaming and come out of the hook,” he said. “The hatchman signalled stop. He looked down the hold and then said: 'You’ve clobbered somebody.”’ Long Cross-examination Baxter underwent a long cross-examination by Mr McClelland on crane operation, and the way he had operated his crane at the time of the accident Baxter said he had begun employment with the Harbour Board on March 15, 1965, had undergone a month’s training course, and after six weeks’ operation, up to the time of the accident on June 1, considered himself competent as a crane-driver. When Mr McClelland suggested that by means of the crane’s luffing Indicator he could have placed a load or cargo tray in the middle of the hatch, without possibility of it striking the hatch coaming, Baxter said that depended on the hatchman—the tray was lowered down where the hatchman wanted it. He agreed that had he adopted the procedure suggested, the accident could not have happened.

Baxter said he did not consider it a mistake on his part to have lowered the tray within 6ft of the hatch coambing, “because that was where the hatchman wanted it to go.” Asked if he could not have put the tray down squarely through the hatch, Baxter said: “Not without doing what I wasn’t wanted to do.” Asked by his Honour to clarify this answer, Baxter said he could have so lowered the tray if he had been “left to himself to do it.” To a final question by Mr McClelland, Baxter agreed that having struck the tray on the hatch coaming, he had not managed to put the tray through the hatch at all. Questioned by Mr Edgely, who also carried out a long cross-examination, Baxter agreed that his concentration on the slightly difficult job of getting swing out of the cargo tray might have taken his attention away from the safety factor involved in operations. Mr Edgely: Had you looked at the luffing indicator just before the tray hit the hatch coaming, it would have warned you? Baxter: It would have warned me, but you don’t look at it then. You don’t wait until your load gets that far. Baxter had previously said to Mr McClelland that he could not remember if he had looked at the indicator or not—and pressed on this

■ point by Mr Edgley, said he : could still not answer yes or • no. , On the completion of this s cross-examination, the leasing was adjourned to this morni ing, when the Harbour Board ’ will call two further witnes- ■ ses. Harbourmaster’s Evidence Captain Arthur Royal ' Champion, Lyttelton harbourmaster, had earlier been called by Mr Thompson to 1 give formal evidence on weather and tides at the port on ' the day of the accident, was I cross-examined by both Mr ' Edgley and Mr McClelland on I crane operations. Asked by Mr Edgley if a . swinging cargo tray should , not be stopped by the crane- ! driver before it was lowered ' to hatch coaming level, witi ness said that the hatchman ' should stop the driver. i Mr Edgley: Leave out the ■ hatchman. The driver can see ’ if he is getting down where . he will strike the hatch eoamI Ing.—Yes. : If he sees his load is swingi ing and is likely to hit the : coaming, he shouldn’t go on lowering?—lt is most difficult : for him to judge, within a : few feet, how close he is get- : ting to the hatch coaming. t When Mr Edgley suggested an area of “a few feet” was a I danger area with a swinging ; tray, Captain Champion re- > peated that it was still “most • difficult” for a driver to estii mate.