SUPREME COURT

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 3011, 23 February 1917, Page 7

SUPREME COURT

ACCIDENT ON A STEAMER £500 DAMAGES AWARDED Mr. Justice Chapman presided at the Supreme Court yesterday, and with a jury.of four heard the case brought by Eichard fright, carpenter, Wellington, against the- New Zealand Shipping Company, Ltd., to recover tho eum of i£sol aa damages for injuries suffered in the course of, his employment as a carpenter on Saturday, July 1 last, on the 8.6. Euahine. ■ ■

Mr. P. J. O'Eepin appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. M. Myers for the defendant company. . The facts eet out in the claim were ( that on the day in question work had ceased about midday. The plaintiff and tiro companions were down below, and were preparing to leave tho vessel when someone called out and asked if anyone was below. Wright called back in reply in a loud voice, but apparently was not. heard, for those above began placing the hatches on. Tho men below did not become alarmed, because there was a manhole or dummy hatch alongside, which was specially used as a means of ingress to and egress from No. 2 hatck Wright ■ and his companions, however, found.that this dummy hatch was fastened down, and there appeared to bo every prospect of their being imprisoned till Monday morning. Wright proceeded to go down the steps from tho dummy hatch, with the.object of getting a piece of scantling in the hope of knocking up the'.hatch. While descending the steps he overbalanced and fell a considerable distance to the bottom of the hold and received severe injuries, as a result of whioh his left leg was broken below the knee and hie right arm was fractured above the elbow, and there w.as also a dislocation of the_ shoulder. It waa claimed that the injuries to the arm and ! shoulder were permanent. The opening statement of Mr. O'Regan was on the lines of the facts set out in the claim, and counsel's statement was supported by the evidence of the plaintiff, Richard Wright. ' ■ Dr. Faulke said he attended the injured man, and desoribed the iijuriss he i.had received. Ho stated that Wright had made a very good recovery, but he would not be able' to use his arm normally. Two other witnesses who were working with plaintiff on the date in question and who wero in the hold with , him also gave evidence. The Defence. In addressing. the jury for the defence, Mr. Myers said plaintiff had two available- remedies. He was, entitled to compensation, whether the accident was tho result of his own negligence or not. In the present case it appeared that Wright would be permanently incapacitated. The Arbitration Court had the power to award a lump sum. Wright was. paid a weekly sum by hie employers until the case came before the Arbitration Court. Evon if tho jury awarded him no damages,'Wright would still bo entitled tio compensation. Wright .could only succeed in his claim if ho could show that the accident was due to the negligence of tho company's servants. The onus of proving negligence rested on the plaintiff. Even if thoro had been negligence, plaintiff could have avoided the accident. Had ho lit a match ho would havo seen his danger, and the accident would not have occurred. Two or three warnings wore given from the top, buit no reply was received. It was suggested that Wright wae not heard when he made roply, but this vas inexplicable. Counsel then read evidenco given by officers of tho Ruahino to tho effect that there had been tlrreo calls made to those below. A reasonable tinio Tias iriven for a reply, but no roply wns received. Evidenco was givan by Frank Jelly, head stevedore for the New Zealand Shipping Company, in support of counsel's opening statement. Two other witnesses were also called for the defence. Issues for tho Jury. Couineel agreed to the following issues being.6ubmitted to the jury:—l. Was the defendant company guilty of negligence? 2. Could plaintiff have reasonably avoided the «cciflont? 3. What damages, if any, is plaintiff entitled to recovor? Tho jury retired at about 5 p.m. and an hour later returned a verdict in favour of the plaintiff, awarding tho full amount of the damages claimed, viz., XSOO. It is reported from Trcntham that fcho well-known horseman, Arthur Oliver (now Private Oliver), being unable to stand tho solid training, has been transferred to the Stores Department, and is . now assistant gtoreman,