YOUNG WIDOW’S CLAIM FOR £4000

Dominion, Volume 30, Issue 255, 24 July 1937, Page 8

YOUNG WIDOW’S CLAIM FOR £4000

Husband Killed on Wharf . • I JURY ASSESSES DAMAGES j AT £2927 _ . ' What is the extent of the pecuniary | ' ’’ loss of a widow, aged 19, for the death of her husband six weeks before the birth of her child? A jury was asked to decide this question in the Supreme Court, Wellington, -yesterday, when Mrs. Lorraine Eva Mary Manning, Lower Hutt, claimed damages totalling £4027/3/6 from the New Zealand Shipping Co.. Ltd. She was awarded £2927 ' 3/0, and judgment was entered accord- ' ingly. The claim arose from a wharf accident. . Mr. Justice Reed presided. Mr. O. C. Mazemgarb, with Mr. G. A. Wylie, appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. W. P. ’-.'■'■■ Shetland for defendant company. Plaintiff sued by her guardian, ad litem, John White, body-builder. She alleged that on March 3, 1937. while " her husband, Gordon Hector Godfrey • Manning, was employed by defendant company, .loading butter into the s.s. Durham, he'was struck and fatally in- . jured by a hatch beam, which became - dislodged and fell into the hold as the '7-- : result of negligence on the part of de- - ’ fondant company. The points of negligence alleged ■ were: Failing to clear a sufficient •- ■ space for discharging operations and to secure the'hatch beams to prevent SAy- their being unshipped, as provided by j ''‘.'•-'“the harbour regulations; failing to: ' plumb the derrick in the centre of the , hatch covering; bringing up an empty | tray otherwise than clear of the hatch i beams and allowing the tray to lift the . . - - batch beam out of position. Negligence Admitted. ■- j-.'. Plaintiff claimed sue was wholly dependent upon her z husband for- her li-veli—- ... ■: hood, and that she and her child had suffered serious pecuniary loss through his death; also that the. negligence of the ' 1 ' company or of its servants was such as ' would, if death had not occurred, have • - , entitled Manning to maintain an action - and recover damages. The damages claimed were made-up as -follows Special damages (funeral and hospital expenses), £27/3/6; general! ... damages, £lOOO. Negligence was admitted, the only /./.“. question in dispute being the quantum of ' damages. ! Plaintiff in evidence said she would . be 20 next April. For 12 months before • i|j s death her husband was employed by i Campbell and Sons, carriers. His aver- . ed: age earnings for a period were-£5 a week, i He left Campbell’s a week before his death, with the view of taking another position. i ‘‘l did not know that he went to work • on the waterfront,” continued plaintiff. | . only there a few hours before j he met his death. There was no need i for him to work that week, but for the sake of the baby that was coming he wanted to. He was in good health and strong. I never knew him to have any sickness. He was 24 years of age.. He was very modest in, his expenditure on ' himself and gave me his wages. My child ; was born on April 20. It is a girl.” : • ' Cross-examined, plaintiff said before her marriage she.was a slipper machinist. John Wihte, body-builler, Perone, said he was an uncle of plaintiff. He had . known Manning for four years, and had always found him a very respectable - ■ young fellow. Samuel John Campbell, carrier, said Manning was never off work during the . "time, he was employed by the firm. He ■ was exceptionally strong. He could handle heavy bags of coal and swing them up on to the lorry. He left because ;>‘K-.-he said he could obtain a better job. Charlton Douglas Morpeth, accountant, said he had examined deceased’s wages C-V < book. From August 14 until he left " Campbell’s his earnings were £5 a week plus considerable other amounts. For 28

■ weeks before his death his earnings were £5/14/8 a week. I No evidence was called for the de- • fence. i “Extravagant Claim.” Mr. Shorland, addressing the jury, submitted the claim was unusually extravat gant. The court records, he said, showed i that up to a week ago it stood at £3OOO, I and then suddenly it was altered to £4OOO. ! “I have no hesitation in describing this 1 claim as extravagant,” said his Honour in summing up. “It is probably the most extravagant claim in a case of this sort that I have ever seen in the courts.” He pointed out that the sum of £4OOO invest,l ed at 4 per cent, would return £3 a week ■ and at 5 per cent., which was not out ; of the way, it would return £4 a week and : still leave the capital intact. The jury retired at 12.5 and returned at one o’clock. They awarded the widow £2250 and the child £650. The special damages brought the total to £2927/3/6.