WHARF ACCIDENT

Dominion, Volume 28, Issue 255, 25 July 1935, Page 11

WHARF ACCIDENT

Waterside Worker Given Damages For Injury STRUCK BY A LORRY Damages for a fractured ankle received when he was knocked down by a motor-lorry on Queen’s Wharf on February 26, were given a waterside worker in the Supreme Court in Wellington yesterday by a jury. Plaintiff was Frederick Rogers, of Wellington, and defendant, was J. J. Curtis and Co., Ltd., forwarding agents, of 'Wellington. The jury assessed special damages at £175. Mr. Justice Smith was on the bench.

The statement of claim set out that plaintiff was engaged in unloading the Waimarino. It was alleged that the driver was negligent in not keeping a proper look-out, failing to sound the horn, driving too close to the edge of the wharf, executing a dangerous manoeuvre, failing to apply the brakes, and failing to keep the vehicle under proper control. Plaintiff’s left leg was crushed and he might be deprived of the use of it or have a permanent limp. The sum of £22 was sought as special damages to meet hospital, massage, and medical treatment, and the sum of £5OO as general damages as compensation for the pain he had suffered and the interference with his prospects of gaining employment.

The statement of defence denied all the allegations of negligence against defendant, contending that the accident was due to negligence of plaintiff in stepping backward on to a thoroughfare without giving warning and in not availing himself of the last opportunity of avoiding the accident. Alternatively the defence declared that the accident was unavoidable in the circumstances with no blame attachable to either party.

Mr R. Hardie Boys, who appeared for plaintiff, said plaintiff was the “lander” of an unloading gang, part of his duty being to receive the net lowered for spreading between the wharf and the vessel to prevent cargo falling into the sea. Plaintiff standing within two or three feet of the edge of the wharf, received the net as it was lowered, and stepped back a pace to spread it. As he did so he was .struck by the lorry, which approached from behind him without any sounding of the horn. Plaintiff was pinned and his ankle fractured. He was In hospital for a few days and his ankle was in plaster for two months. He suffered considerable pain and was left with a jiermanent limp. It was not alleged that the lorry was driven too fast. The driver, however, should have seen plaintiff, who was in full view, and should not have cut between a standing crane and another lorry when he could have gone round, nor approached so closely to the edge of the wharf. Evidence on these lines was given by plaintiff, Dr. A. Gillies, Dr. D. Stout. Patrick Connors, James Boe, Robert Boyd, D. Peterson, J. O. Johnson, and A. D. Canhani. Mr. H. F. O’Leary, K.C., who appear ed for defendant, with Mr. S. Hardy, contended that there was no negligence on the part of defendant. Plaintiff caused the accident by stepping backward into the path of a moving lorry. The lorry driver waj> experienced in general and wharf driving. He was taking cargo to a slied near the vessel moored to the wharf. Wishing to back into the shed, he drove, forward and then back, and then forward again, seeldng to turn the vehicle straight on to the door of the shod. In the process of manoeuvring he knocked down plaintiff. The driver blew the horn ns he first approached the scene, but not as he was going backward and forward in hi,s turning, as the lorry was so big and the space on the wharf so small that anyone working there must have known of its presence. Arthur Kitto, the driver of the lorry, and Michael Leary, the driver of another lorry, and Drs. W. Robertson and E. W. Glesen. gave evidence for defendant. For the defence Mr. O’Leary contended that, on the medical evidence, it was evident that plaintiff would have no permanent disability, and any damages awarded should be nominal. His Honour told the jury it might decide the question of whether the lorry driver was negligent by studying his evidence, wlu'sii included a statement that had he kept plaintiff under observation there would have been no accident. It was for the jury to decide if this amounted to a statement that he was not keeping a proper look-out. As to whether plaintiff was also negligent the jury had to consider whether a reasonable waterside worker would have stepped back from the edge of the wharf without first turning round to look.

After a retirement of half an hour the jury found that defendant’s driver was negligent, assessing the general damages at £175 and the special damages at £22/12/0.