WATERSIDER'S DEATH

Evening Post, Volume LXXXVIII, Issue 131, 30 November 1914, Page 8

WATERSIDER'S DEATH

SEQUEL TO FATALITY ON MAITAI A CLAIM FOR £2000 COMPENSATION. On 31st March last a wharf labourer named Thomas Caldwell met his death through a sling of phopshates falling on him while working on the Union Company's steamer Maitai, and as the outcome his Honour Mr. Justice Edwards and a special jury were engaged at the Supreme Court to-day in hearing a claim for £2000 compensation, by Lucinda Caldwell, widow of the deceased, against the Union Company. The action had been previously heard on 21st May and the following day, before hie Honour Mr. Justice Hosking, but the jury had failed to agree. At to-day's nevr trial, Mr. A. Gray, K.C., with Mr. E.,J. Fitzgibbon, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. T., M. Wilford and Mr. P. Levi for the defendant company. Mr. Gray, in opening for the plaintiff, said that the case had been brought under a Statute which gave the right to recover damages for an accident caused Iby wilful default or negligence. The jury would be informed that the plaintiff I was entitled to some compensation un1 • er the Workers' Compensation Act. I Mr. Wilford remarked that the company was prepared to pay the amount of £500 at any time. Mr. Gray added that the present action had been brought, because the claimant was not satisfied with the amount the Union Company was prepared to pay ;for herself and her son. The latter, who was 19 years of age, was earning 15s a week as an engineer's apprentice. Under the Workers' Compensation Act the Union Company was compelled to pay £500 if the earnings of deceased justified the maximum amount payable under the Act. The accident accurred through a sling of superphosphates breaking at the top of its hoist while unloading operations were in progress. The sling was made up by the deceased and another member of the gang in which he was working. Caldwell, who was standing in the hold underneath, was struck by the bags and killed, and his mate, Bradley, was injured. My. Gray stated that each sack of phosphates would weigh about two.cwt, and I about eight sacks usually went t4)< the [ sling. The action was based upon the alleged negligence of the defendant company. The sling it- was contended was in a ruined state, and it was the duty of the employer to take reasonable precaution to see that proper appliances were provided for the workers. The plaintiff in her evidence stated that her husband was , forty-four years of age in October last. He joined the Wharf Labourers' Union while the strike was on, and was employed by the Union Company. With the exception of nine weeks during which he had been unable j to work as the result of a previous accident, he had been the whole time in the employ of the Union Company, and his average earnings were from £2. 10s to £3 10s per week. Since his death she had not been in good health, and her only means of existence had been an amount of £30 or £ ( 32 given to her by the Wharf Labourers' Union and the money she had earned from doing a little washing. (Proceeding.)