WIDOW’S CLAIM FOR DAMAGES

Dominion, Volume 30, Issue 47, 19 November 1936, Page 18

WIDOW’S CLAIM FOR DAMAGES

Sequel to Accident at New Railway Station

a' claim for damages amounting to £2500 was brought in the Supreme Court, Wellington, yesterday, by Mrs. Agnes Gardiner, whose husband, William Henry Gardiner, was killed in an accident at the new railway station in June last. Defendant was the Fletcher Construction Co., Ltd. The case was heard before Mr. Justice Blair and a jury. Mr. E. Parry, with him Mr. D. J. Dalglish, appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. O. C. Mazengarb for defendant.

Deceased was employed by the Government as clerk of works on the new station. At about 10 a.m. on June 9. he was standing on scaffolding opposite the third floor of the building. Near him was a wheel-barrow attached to a hoist. An employee of the company started the engine, raising the wheelbarrow. Gardiner was caught, or lifted by the barrow from the scaffolding, and fell to the ground. He received fatal injuries. Alleging negligence against the'ccmpany, the statement of claim contended that before the barrow was lowered Steps should have been taken to ascertain whether anybody was in the vicinity. It was alleged that the company was negligent in failing to have a signalman on the scaffolding, and in failing to have a guard-rail near the hoist. The defence was a complete denial of negligence. The company contended that the scaffolding complied faithfully with the regulations, that the engine and hoist were operated in accordance with the regulations, and that the accident was due entirely to Gardiner’s own negligence in entering the scaffolding when the nature of his duties did not require him to uo so. It was claimed that he was standing astride of or in proximity to the wheelbarrow when he knew or ought to have known that the barrow was attached to the hoist, and was about to be lowered. and further, that if there was negligence on the part of the company, which was not admitted, then he had the last opportunity of avoiding its consequences.

At the conclusion of plaintiff’s case. Mr. Mazengarb moved for a nonsuit. Legal argument over the application will be heard when the court resumes this morning.