SUPREME COURT $15,000 Damages Claim Against Scrap-Metal Dealers

Press, Volume CVIII, Issue 31632, 19 March 1968, Page 8

SUPREME COURT $15,000 Damages Claim Against Scrap-Metal Dealers

A man’s fall on to a heap of sharp scrap metal, with injury to a hand and wrist, while helping to lift a box in a dealer’s yard, resulted in his claim in the Supreme Court yesterday for $15,000 general damages against the Inmetals Trading Company, Ltd.

The plaintiff, Royston Peter Conway, a tool and die-maker, gave evidence—which he demonstrated with a model of his own making—how he had overbalanced, stumbled over a 14-gallon drum, and fallen on to the heap of stainlesssteel scrap, severely cutting his left hand and severing a tendon—leaving him, as a lefthanded man, with disability at his trade.

Mr Conway claimed that the Inmetals Company was negligent in that one of its employees helping him lift a 1001 b box of stainless-steel scrap off a set of scales had left him insufficient room to manoeuvre, had failed to warn him of that, and had pushed the box towards him when he knew, or ought to have known, that plaintiff would have to step back on to the scrap-metal heap. Allegations Denied

The Inmetals company (Mr R. P. Thompson) denies these allegations, saying that the plaintiff had been standing on the heap when his foot slipped, and that at no time had any employee of the company pushed a box towards the plaintiff. If there had been any accident —which the company denied—it was caused solely by the plaintiff’s own negligence. The claim is being heard before Mr Justice Macarthur and a jury of 12, and will continue today. Counsel for the plaintiff, Mr G. S. Brockett, said: "This might seem a large sum to claim, but you have a plaintiff who is restricted somewhat in education, but a skilled tradesman, who now finds that, because of his injury, he is not as useful in that field, and will not be able to compete with others in the future.”

Mr Conway, he said, had foreseen openings for himself in the plastics industry, using his specialised knowledge of tool and die-making “in a supervisory demonstrationteaching capacity.” But as a result of his accident he had had to continue in his post of running a small press shop for his employer, L. R. Wilkinson, Ltd, which allowed him no progress, and restricted him to $3OOO a year, instead of the $4OOO or so he might have hoped for. Medical Evidence

In medical evidence for the plaintiff, Mr W. A. Liddell, an orthopaedic surgeon, said that Mr Conway had far more functional disability in the left hand than was suggested by its appearance. “It is all bound up with nerve injury,” Mr Liddell said. Mr Conway would always have difficulty in carrying out his job, although his condition would improve. (Mr Conway, in his evidence, said he found no improvement in his hand since suffering the injury in July, 1966.) Under cross-examination, Mr Liddell agreed that Mr Conway’s nervous disposition might produce more hypersensitivity in his injured hand than would be the case with somebody else. The plaintiff himself, under cross-examination, said he did not agree with Mr Liddell’s reassurance that the condition pf his hand would improve, which might enable him to undertake work requiring the

use of his hand in training for a more remunerative job in the plastics industry. Mr Thompson: Why not? Plaintiff: The way my hand is now, if it persists, I will have the same handicap. He could not undertake such work at present, Mr Conway said. Plaintiff's Denials Mr Conway, in the course of further questioning, denied that he had helped tip out five boxes of scrap before his accident, and that he had been standing on the scrapmetal heap when it occurred. The box being handled was the first one he helped to lift. Mr Thompson: Would a Mr Burke, who helped you, be mistaken, or untruthful, when he said you and he had shifted several boxes? Plaintiff: All I know is that was the first box as far as I was concerned.

Mr Conway also denied Mr Burke’s statement, when put to him, that there had been

no drums at the scene of the accident. Mr Conway agreed that he had not blamed Mr Burke after the accident, nor when being driven to hospital, nor on making two visits to the Inmetals yard after discharge from hospital. He agreed that the first suggestion of a complaint was the following letter from his solicitors to the Inmetals company on February 23, 1967, more than six months after the accident: ‘‘lt is our view that the injury which Mr Conway sustained to his left hand and wrist was a result of your company’s negligence, and that it now appears he will be left with a permanent disability. In due course, we will be formulating a claim against you." After medical evidence for the defence by Mr A. B. Mackenzie, an orthopaedic surgeon, had been interpolated, the trial was adjourned to this morning, with the plaintiff’s case still not completed.