FALL DOWN A HOLD

Evening Post, Volume XCIII, Issue 46, 22 February 1917, Page 8

FALL DOWN A HOLD

ACCIDENT TO SHIP'S

CARPENTER

CLAIM FOR £500 DAMAGES

Unusual features attached to an accident ■which was the subject of a claim for damages beard in the Supreme Court to-day, before Mr. Justice Chapman and a common jury of four. The plaintiff was Richard Wright, carpenter, of Wellington, who claimed from the defendants, the New Zealand Shipping Company, the sum of £500 damages for injuries received on the steamer Ruahine on .Saturday, Ist July, 1916. Negligence was alleged against the company. . . . In phi 6 statement of claim, plaintiff set orat that at the time of the accident he •was employed by the company as a carpenter at £3 6s per week. On the date'in question, he-was at work in No. 2 hold of the Ruahine, and while co engaged the hatches of the hold were fastened down preparatory to ceasing work until the Monday. At about the same time the covering of the man-hole, on "dummy hatch," used as a means of ingress and egress from the hold, was also fastened down, and plaintiff was deprived of any means of egress. On discovering his predicament plaintiff ascended the steps or ladder-way leading to the man-hole, intending either to remove the covering or io make • his pre-sence-known. While doing so he over balanced, and fell from the steps to the bottom "of the hold, and received severe bodily injuries, including a fracture of the left leg below the knee, and a dislocation of the right shoulder. He had since been totally disabled, and had been advised that ho would be so disabled for an indefinite period, and seriously disabled for the rest of his life. He claimed that he was shut down in the hold b}' employees of the company, and that by reason of negligence or want of reasonable care he suffered the injuries described.

In the statement of defence the company' asserted''that, just I prior to the accident; the hatches were not fastened down preparatory to ceasing work until Monday, but on account of rain. The company further. denied that the manhole in question, was. fastened down at the,,same * time as the hatches, but, instead, some time later. It was admitted that plaintiff, received bodily damages in .the. hold, of, the , but the company-had no -knowledge as to whether the allegations concerning the accident were correct or. other wise. 1 Negligence or want of reasonable care on the—part—of—the - company--or its em"ploj'ees Was denied, arid it was claimed v nnally, :i ." That the injuries sustained ■by-'the plaintiff were caused by his own negligence in remaining in the hold of the said steamship.'.' _ ;' . -Mr.- P; J. O'Regan appeared for -the : plaintiff- and'Mi\ M.:- Myers -for the defendant "company! "":' 7 ' '"""}':.',

"'.Tha fost'\yitness:>vas Di\ Faulke, who, after outlining the nature, of Dhe injuries, said it would be impossible for plaintiff' to work for at least another year. Plaintiff's condition would improve with treatment —movements and massage. At present he could not raise his arm"higher.:thaii .horizontal to the body. ■•- ■■*.-.■ To Mr. Myers: Plaintiff had been 'doing very well "since October. . .--"' PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE: The plaintiff, P.ichard Wright, who appeared ..to be suffering, greatly from .his injuries, said .-he "was ,58 'years of age. At about 11- o'clock on the morning of the accident an officer of the ship informed witness that he would have tpstpp. work; „; \ yitness verified the instruction, and'then returned to; tell his mates who were working in the lower 'tween decks.'. IL'fe gathered his tools and placed them on one side, and shortly after, heard somebody.. call. from above, "Anyone.below ?','.,, He could not recognise the voice, but answered back :" "We're just coming." It was dark then, the main hatches being closed. Witness and his mates proceeded to leave the hatch, and on reaching the top 'tween deck thoy found a man named Taylor attempting to force the covering of the manhole. Taylor stated that they were locked in, and asked witness to find_ a piece of wood so that the attention of any person on the main deck could be "attracted." Witness began to feel round for something suitable to make a noise with. 'It was pitch dark, and her tripped over something and fell to the bottom of the ship. He was taken to the Hospital and remained there for eleven -weeks. Witness stated he was married, and had reared a family of eight. He had been working on ships for some time, and it had been the visual practice for the foreman to go down to the men .when he wanted them 'to- 'go"on .deck "instead of calling out from above.

To Mr. Myers : The company had paid plaintiff half pay up to 9th .February, a total, of £52 16s. It was just as' he struck a match that he fell. He did not strike a match before, because he did not know, he was so near the edge. He heard only one man call from above. Taylor did not hear that call. Witness did not expect to find the dummy hatch closed. ■ ■ . OTHER EVIDENCE: . James. Orr and Henry ■ Taylor, both carpenters worked with Wright on the morning of the accident. Taylor stated that when plaintiff told him they had to knock off because there was no timber he immediately put his coat on, and went straight up the ladder, losing no time.. He found, to his surprise, the dummy hatch locked, and he endeavoured to force it open but did not succeed. He asked Wright to find a, piece of wood, as he had'been unable to make anybody hear. He did not see Wright fall, but heard something, and when he called out, "Are you there, Dick?" he received^ no answer. When he was told to knock off he got out of .the hold with all reasonable speed. Generally a depnty foreman always went down a hold when he wanted the men to leave, and did not call from above. It was quite unusual for the dummy hatch to be closed. ■ ■ .

(Proceeding.)