SHIPPING COMPANY CHARGED

Dominion, Volume 30, Issue 261, 31 July 1937, Page 13

SHIPPING COMPANY CHARGED

, Alleged Failure to Secure Hatch Beam WHARF ACCIDENT SEQUEL A wooden model of the hold and cargo gear of the ship Durham, in the hold of which a watersider named Gordon Manning was fatally injured on March 3, was used in the Magistrate’s Court, Wellington, yesterday, during the hearing of a prosecution against the New Zealand Shipping Company. It was charged by the Marine Department with failing to comply with the Wellington Harbour Board’s regulations governing the securing of hatch beams. i Mr. J. H. Luxford, S.M., is hearing the case. Dr. N. A. Foden, of the Crown Law Office, is appearing for the department, and Mr. W. P. Shorland for the New Zealand Shipping Company. After evidence was- heard yesterday, the magistrate gave bis finding on the facts, namely that immediately preceding the accident there was only one bolt securing the hatch beam, although it was fastened at some stage; and intimated that he would hear counsel on Wednesday, as to whether the company’s liability was absolute. At the outset an undertaking was given Mr. Evan Parry that if reflection were cast in the course of the proceedings on the master or chief officer, they would be given an opportunity to make depositions. Theories of Accident. Dr. Foden said he die not know of any previous prosecution of a similar nature. He would refrain from discussing the liability of the company as agent for the owners, as defending counsel Would probably be heard on that point. He commented, however, that there was a whole series of agents, from the company as stevedores, to the superintendent, and right down to the watereiders. The prosecution was based on a Wellington Harbour Board regulation requiring the beam of any hatch,! if not removed, to be adequately secured to prevent displacement. Louis Fenton, inspector of cargo gear in the Marine Department, described his view of the accident with the aid of the model. His suggestion was that the loaded sling swung against the beam and displaced it. He had been unable to find the bolt which must have dropped out of its slot, although it could quite easily have been lost among the cargo in the hold. , . Handed by Mr. Shorland a copy of his depositions at the inquest, witness was unable to point out any reference to the distortion of the starboard slot, but maintained that he did put forward the same suggestion at the inquest. Captain Ashton Janies Naylor h< ; ad stevedore of the New Zealand Shipping Company, produced a report of the accident compiled by a clerk. Witness told Mr. Shorland there was one foreman in charge of the whole work, one on the foredeck, and one on the alterdeck. There was also a hatehman in charge of each hatch. It was the duty usually of the ship’s carpenter to secure batch beams, and he was adequately supervised. Both the foreman and hatchman would the b °. lts .u W ? r ® in position. The derricks were built foi a strain of 10 tons, while the breaking strain of the ropes used was about a ton To the magistrate, witness said the breaking strain of the bolts used for securing the beams was about ei„ht °An effective guard was used to prevent the book of the sling fouhng,.the beam. It would not be possible to secure a beam so as to prevent its giving way if the hook- did foul it when making a heavy Eye-witness’s Story. Arthur Enery Burns said he was the winchman on the port side, and saw the beam lift out of the slot. The men below who were not union men, had hooked the trav by one of the ring-bolts at the corners instead of the -wire ropes. He saw the tray clutch, in the beam and lift it about a foot. It held a brief while and then tilted, allowing the beam to fall. He was sure there was no bolt securing the beam on the porteide. To Mr. Shorland: The winches on the Durham are electric and can be stopped in a fraction of a second. I did not see there was no bolt, but judged so from the way the beam was displaced. The hatches were opened up after I began work, when the foreman and the hatchman were present. Witness insisted the bolt on the starboard side was not put in at this port. The magistrate: There was the luncheon period. Witness: Yes, that is so, but I am positive no bolt, was put in while I was there. Expert’s Evidence. Archibald Charles Mitchell, expert engineer, said it was exceedingly unlikely the beam was bolted at both ends. The tackle catching the beam, loosely attached as it was, could not exert the necessary strain of 13 to 15 tons. The friction would cause it to fly off. Shown the bent bolt from the starboard side, witness said it had obviously not been pushed right through. If there had been a nut on the end the thread would have been destroyed instead of just bruised at the point. Defence Asserts Both Bolts in Position. The company took the view that it was not liable, eaid Mr. Shorland, first because it could be proved the bolts were adequately secured and secondly on legal grounds, because it was not a person in the meaning of the regulation. George Johnston, waterside worker, said he was the hatchman on the Durham on the day of the accident. Ah Soon as the hatch-tops camo off be put in the port side bolt and then the starboard side one.. There was no doubt in his mind that the bolts were there before loading began. When the tray came ijp.tbe main hook caught the beam. The winchman amidships failed to See his signal,, and the winch was not stopped in time. Dr. Foden: Did you see the beam lift out of the socket? Witness: Yes, it lifted about a foot. It would appear there was no bolt? I would not say that. The winches are very powerful. You cannot say the bolt was in at 3 o’clock? I would expect it to be. I have never seen a bolt come out. The magistrate: Do you ever use nuts with these bolts? Witness: If there is a nut about it is used. There was no nut on either side this time. William Hyde, foreman stevedore, said he went on board at 20 minutes to 11. He shook hands with the ship’s carpenter, who then hafl bolts in his band. Ho did not know who put the bolts in. but they were in before work began. The magistrate: What do you sav about the use of nuts? Witness: Mostly there is nothing to worry about once the Imlts are in. Findings of Fact. The magistrate said he was able to ! give his finding as to the faets. The i beam was fastened at some stage, hut im- I mediately preceding the accident there was only one bolt secured, namely, on the port side. There was none on the starboard side. There was no indication of how the latter became unattached, but it was evident that at some period it was not adequately secured. There remained the question of whether the omission was absolute, and mens rea came in. Mr. Shorland said he would submit . that if the regulation threw any duty on the company x it was to secure the hatch before work began: and that in any case the company was not embraced by the regulation when it used the word "per- I son.” f

The magistrate: What point do you fix as the point of commencement. , Mr. Shorland: When the decision is made not to remove a beam.