Watties faces charges after blender death

Press, 3 November 1984, Page 4

Watties faces charges after blender death

PA Gisborne Prosecution evidence in two charges brought against J. Wattle Canneries after the death of a worker in a food blender has been heard in the District Court at Gisborne.

Judge Rice has reserved his decision on submissions made by the defence that there is no case to answer. If those submissions fail, defence evidence will be heard at a later date.

Watties is charged on two alternative counts brought by the Labour Department of failing to comply with and failing to observe a provision of the Machinery Act, 1950, as owner of a ribbon blender.

Mr Terry Stapleton appeared for the Crown, and Messrs Michael Crew, of Auckland, and Robin Willox, of Hastings, for the comcharge arises from the death on February 2 of Riwai te Hokowhitu Smith when he became caught in

the blades of the pet food department blender. Prosecution. witnesses said that workers had used the blender with the safety guard removed, concealing from their employer the fact that they were overriding a safety switch installed for their safety at the direction of the Labour Department.

The department contends that the safety switch was not installed correctly to guard against tampering by staff.

Submitting that there was no case to answer, Mr Crew said the prosecution evidence presented a defence. There was compliance with the act if a device was fitted to the machine to stop the operator coming into contact with the blades.

Mr Crew said there had been a concession in that evidence that a normally off-type of switch did prevent a person coming into contact as long as the person did not tamper with it.

A statutory defence was present, and so that was the end of the matter and it should be dismissed on that basis, he said. It was perfectly obvious that there had been tampering and that a tragic accident bad occurred. But the death was irrelevant to this case, which dealt simply with =the company’s responsibilities under the act, he said. The workers’ concession was frank — they knew the , guard was there for thensafety, they knew they should not move it but they did so and concealed it. Mr Crew said the issue was Whether Watties should be criminally responsible for the acts or employees. If they did something contrary to instructions, this did not mean . that the safety measures were necessarily defective. The Judge is expected to make his decision on the submissions before November 8.