SUPREME COURT

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 3173, 25 August 1917, Page 3

SUPREME COURT

HAYWOOD V. -U.S.S. COMPANY

JUDGMENT ENTERED FOR £1250

DAMAGES

His Honour Mr. Justice Hosking yesterday sat to hear argument upou a motion j ior judgment in tho ease of Amelia Hay- I wood v. the "Union Stcaru Ship Coinpuuy I of i\ T cw Zealand, Ltd. This was a claim, heard on May 24 last, ior £2003 damages iu respect. of tho death of plaintiffs husband, Albert, Lawrence Haywood. deceased mot his death on March 1 while acting as crane-man on the s.s. Manuka. While tho hatches wore being placed over the hold shortly before 10 p.m., deceased stepped out to catch tho crane hook. Tho hatch he stood on gave way, and he was instautaneously killed by a fall of about thirty-five feet into tho hold. Tho widow then brought tho action, alleging that tho accident was duo to tho company's negligence, iu that the flange on. which tho hatches wore to rest was too narrow, and further, that the particular hatch which tollapsed was, by reason of shrinkage and wear ayd tear, too short. Further, the statement of claim alleged that the defendant company's system of removing and replacing the hatches was inefficient and dangerous. The company denied all these allegations, and pleaded that the negligence complained ot' was that of a fellow-servant in common employment with the deceased, and that therefore tho company was not liable for a greater sum than £500. This amount it paid into Court. The jury having answered the issues in favour of the plaintiff, and award- ! Ed her £1250 damages, His Honour postponed the entering of judgment until yesterday. Yesterday Mr. V. J. O'llegan appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. I'. Levi ior tho defendant. Mr. O'Kegan moved that judgment be entered for tho plaintiff for £1250. Mr. Levi contended that the damages must be limited to £500. His Honour said that he would have to rule against Mr. Levi. Section 14 of the Workers' Compensation Amendment Act, 1911, did not alfect the right of dependants to recover damages iu excess of £500. In {he Auckland ense of Robin v. U.S.S. Co., in which Mr. Olfccgan had appeared for tho plaintiff, His Honour had piven judgment to this effect, and he could not rule against himself. Mr. Levi: Then my argument cannot proceed. His Honour entered judgment in accordance with Mr. O'licgan's motion. Mr. Levi intimated that there would be an appeal.