Supreme Court JURY AWARDS $5590 IN DAMAGES CLAIM

Press, Volume CIX, Issue 32018, 19 June 1969, Page 21

Supreme Court JURY AWARDS $5590 IN DAMAGES CLAIM

Damages of $5590 were awarded by a jury in the’ Supreme Court last evening) to Robert James Sparks, a former bushman, in his claim • for $9452 damages against his I former employer, Reginald Samuel Collett, a sawmill manager, and B. J. Hale, Ltd, logging contractors. The jury found that the two defendants responsible for an accident in which Mr Sparks broke a wrist while working in the Eyrewell State Forest in April, 1966, holding the second defendant, B. J. Hale, Ltd, 90 per cent liable and Mr Collett, the first defendant, 10 per cent! liable. It assessed general dam- : ages at $3840 and special j damages—which had been ini dispute—at $1750. Mr Justice Wilson de-! ferred the entry of judgment; for Mr Sparks—whose case | was conducted by Mr B. A.' Barrer, with him Mr P. F. Tempero—and allowed 28;; days for the defendants to renew formal motions for i non-suit, or move for a new ’ trial, or judgment notwith- ; standing the jury’s verdict i The plaintiff claimed that i he suffered his accident when i the handle of a screw jack—supplied by B. J. Hale, Ltd, and which he was using to , lower a log-laden trailer fort coupling to a truck—spun I, back without warning and I, struck him a severe blow on i. the wrist breaking it. The plaintiff claimed that(j he had been using the jack), under instructions from his ' employer, Mr Collett i ( The jury deliberated for). Ihr 20min before returning; a verdict in the pliantifrs'] favour. L Address For Plaintiff it Mr Barrer, for the plaintiff, i [ had submitted that the juryjs should have no difficulty inis finding the second defendant'!

18. J. Hale, Ltd, very largely, 'responsible for the accident., 1 One witness, Hale's former! truck-driver, Mr Carroll, had let the cat out of the bag, : submitted Mr Barrer. He had given evidence of seeing the plaintiff lying on the ground, holding his wrist, after the accident, and had said: “I knew straight away what had happened. I knew he must have got a crack from the jack-handle as it spun round.” The expert evidence of engineers, said Mr Barrer, was that the jack was inherently unsafe, and further, Mr Carroll had said that its handle j did spin back. I “What is the use of arguiment when you have evidence like that?” Mr Barrer asked the jury. Mr Barrer also submitted ; that the weight of medical evidence was on the plainstiff’s side in that three wit- , nesses—Messrs R. Blunden and J. G. Lester, orthopaedic surgeons, and Mr L. A. Ben- ) nett, a general surgeon of long experience—had all ' agreed that Mr Sparks, because of his injury, was now unfit for the heavy work of a bushman. , “A True Accident” Mr A. Hearn, addressing I the jury for the second de- ' fendant, B. J. Hale, Ltd, sub- ’ , mitted that, on a whole view i of the case, what had happened to the plaintiff was an i accident in the true sense of I the word. “Something hap- ' pened that nobody expected to happen, and that nobody I could reasonably have anticipated,” Mr Hearn said. Opposing counsel, said Mr i Hearn, would no doubt refer to the jack the plaintiff had I been using as a dangerous piece of equipment. But he j submitted that that was not so. There was no evidence J that it eould be described as i

-,dangerous. It had been used J for 10 years without incident, j Was it reasonable that anylone could know it would that day act in such a way as to break the plaintiff's wrist? The expert evidence was that the jack was unsafe, but that the ordinary man—which included Mr Hale and Mr Collett, as well as the plaintiff—could not be expected to know that. Mr Hearn, examining technical evidence, challenged the plaintiff’s version of the accident—that the jack handle had spun out of his hand—and suggested that the plaintiff must have let go the handle, which would revolve slowly at first, and then faster, and then must have tried to get hold of it again as it was moving quickly. “Is there any other possible explanation of what happened?” Mr Hearn asked. If anyone had been careless, submitted Mr Hearn, it was the plaintiff's own emnloyer. Mr Collett, who should have been looking after his employee. “Completely Unrealistic” Mr C. B. Atkinson, addressing the jury on behalf of Mr Collett, the first defendant, submitted that the notion that Mr Collett should have given the plaintiff a warning about the jack was completely unrealistic. On this aspect. Mr Atkinson put to the jury the following hypothetical conversation: Mr Collett: Careful now, Mr Sparks, careful with the jack! Mr Sparks: Why? Mr Collett: It might unwind on you. Mr Sparks: How do you know that? Mr Collett: I don’t—but I’ve just had an inspiration. “Such a picture, I submit, gentlemen, is quite inconIceivable.” Mr Atkinson said.