A BROKEN SLING

Evening Post, Volume LXXXVII, Issue 118, 20 May 1914, Page 8

A BROKEN SLING

CLAIM FOR £2000 DAMAGES WHARF WORKER'S DEATH CASE BEFORE SUPREME COURT. A claim for £2000 as compensation for the death of her husband, Thoma3 Caldwell, is being made by Mrs. Lucinda Caldwell against the Union Steam Ship Company. The case was called before liis Honour Mr. Justice Hosking and a jflry of twelve at the Supreme Court to<uiy. Mr. A. Gray, K.C., with him Mr. E. J. Fitzgibb'on, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. T. M. "Wilford and Mr. P. Levi for the defendant company. , The fatality occurred on the steamer Maitai on 31st March last, and was due to the breakage of a sling- holding a/ number of bags of superphosphate. i STATEMENT OF THE CASE. The claimant, said Mr. Gray, was the widow of a. wharf labourer who was & member- of the new Wharf Labourers' .Union formed during the strike. CaldWell and his mates were in the lower part of the forehold of the Maitai, and were occupied in 'placing bags 'of superphosphate into the cargo slings. The bags weighed about 2 cwt,' and 'eight formed a load.' ■ One of the slings broke, and the bags fell, Caldwell being killed outright and another man named Bradley •was injured. It was found afterwards that the rope had perished and was quite unfit to be used for such a- purpose. Whether the chemical action of the manure had had any effect upon the rope was doubtful, but it would be shown that the rope had deteriorated. According to the claim, the sJing should never have been used. There was no contention, that the load put into the cling was not a. reasonable one. It ■totalled 15 or 16 cwt., and the ropes when -new were tested to carry two or three tons. But there had of late been a- process of speeding up in shipping •work and it was .impossible for the men to take such heed to their own safety as before. At the time of the accident there were eight men, all busy as bees, taking cargo out of that part of the hold directly under the hatch. The company, said Mr. Gray, denied that they did not take reasonable cai'e, and that the sling was not in a, fit condition for use. The occurrence- was, the defence said, due to inevitable- accident, and the defence also' held that there was contributory negligence on the part of Caldwell in not getting into shelter till the sling was up. This was all very well in theory, but did not work in practice. Any mart who took care to seek shelter every time a, sling went up would not be long employed by the company, which would consider he was too anxious for his own safety. The only danger they had to fear was that a bag might fall out 5 and deceased knew that would not happen. He had a right to believe that the sling itself was safe from breakage, and,_ therefore, was justified in going on with his work. It was clear, continued Mr. Gray, that there was no system, or at most a VeTy haphazard system, of inspection of slings, which, if_ taken proper care of, would last a long time. It was, he held, the duty of the authorities to inspect them from time to- time, in view of their inevitable deterioration. PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE. juueinda Caldwell, the plaintiff, stated nit her husband was employed by the -Jnion Company, from the period of the strike till the time of his death, earning *rom. £2 10s to £3 5s per week, except ' for nine or ten weeks during which he was laid up by an accideut, and received half wages. He was 45 years of age. Cilice her husband's death she had been keeping herself by doing washing, earning about 5s a clay when she could go out. Latterly she had been ill, and had been for sometime confined to bed. Her eon was an apprentice earning 153 a week, and she had no further income. To Mr. Wilford : The witness did not know that the Union Company was bound to pay compensation to the amount of about £500 under the Workmen's Compensation Act. This evidence was objected, to by Mr. Gray, Jtnd Mr. Wilford said that < he wished it to be made clear to the jury that the company was ready to pay that money, and that a further claim had been brought at common law, a claim which the company had to fight. His Honour said that where carelessness was involved, the Workers' Compensation , Act did not award enough, and any larger amount had_ to be at common law. The Workers' Compensation Act was intended for the awarding of damages whether there was carelessness or not. Witness said that the deceased's previous injury was the loss of the top of one finger. He had not received any lump sum as compensation for that acci- j dent. He was an experienced cargo worker. THE ACCIDENT. EtiwaTd Bradley, wharf labourer, said that at the time of the accident four gangs of two men each were taking cargo out from directly under the hatch, about -thirty feet below the deck, and from, a small distance round. Their instructions •were to "fill the elinge U2>." This meant that they were to use their own judgment as to what a sling ■ would carry. The load which fell was mad(» up. by ■ ihimself and the deceased, and consisted of eight or nine 2cwt sacks, which he judged to be about 1601b each. That iwae a reasonable load ; a sling should ■ carry 25owt safely. When the sling ■went up, he went under the deck, ac iwas customary, for safety. He stayed theTe tiD he thought the- sling was clear of the coamings. Caklwcll went out to get another rope sling, and, judging ifrom the lapse of time ami Cpldwell's action, witness w.eiit out and took one end of tli© sling. The next thing he 'knew wae that ho was being taken nut of the hold in a. stretcher. Ho had quite recovered from his injuries. Big slings weTe being made up because the cargo was being "dumped" on the wharf [instead of landed in the tmcke, the object being to discharge the cargo more quickly. It v/as UEual for men to see that the sling was clear of the hatch dbefore leaving the shelter of tlie deck 'above him, but it was not always done Ho could not say this half-minute wait was wasted time, seeing that it was ■for pafety. If flaws were notice-d in the slings they were put nekle and notireed. To Mr. Wilford : It was the men's duty to keep clear of tho hatchway till the sling was clear for their own p-ro-tection. and the hatchman always called out a- warning when the sling was about to bo hoJ«lc<l. It was al.°o the general ipractico for the men, before leaving f*belfcer, to look up to see that the sling was clear of the hatch. He did not look tip because Caldwoll had gone out, iiirtd if Cakltt'eli had looked tig ho must have «oen the cling overhead." * (Proceeding.)

Cofo's Cadi Drapery Co,, Manriersph'ecl, adverti«-o tho commbueemeiifc of_ a palo of Messrs Johnson and Ell's English warehouse utxxiU to-morrow at 10 o'clock, infants' arid ohildrens' underwear, and ladies' underwear, hosiery, gloves, etc., are on view in the windows of this firm. A notice regarding Pratl's petroleum J •pints is advertised vi this issue.