A WORKER'S DEATH

Evening Post, Volume XCIV, Issue 48, 25 August 1917, Page 11

A WORKER'S DEATH

WIDOW'S CLAIM FOR DAMAGES

INTERESTING ARGUMENT.

Points of general interest were involved in the legal argument hoard this week by Mr. Justice Hosking in connection with the case of Amelia Haywood v. Union Steam Ship Company, N.Z., Ltd. The deceased, Albert Lawrenco Hay wood, was a waterside worker, and on Thursday, Ist March, last he was killed by accident while employed on the s.s. under somewhat unusual circumstances. Haywood was craneman at No. 2 hold. The vessel had been discharging, and work was about to cease for the night. While the hatches were being placed over the hold shortly before 10 p.m., deceased, stepped out to catch the crane-hook, when the hatch he stood on gave away, and deceased was precipitated to the bottom of the hold, a distance of about 35 feet, death being instantaneous. The widow then brought an action claiming £2000 damages, alleging that the accident was due to the company's negligence in that the flange on which the hatches were to rest was too narrow for the purpose, and further, that the particular hatch "which collapsed, by reason of shrinkage and. wear and tear, was too short. Further, the statement 6f claim alleged that the defendant company's system of removing and replacing the hatches was inefficient and dangerous. The defendant company denied all these allegations, and pleaded that the negligence was that of a fellow servant in common employment ■with the deceased, by reason of which the defendant company was not liable for' a greater sum than £500, which amount it paid_jnto Court. The case was juried on 24th May last, before Mr. Justice Hosking and a jury of twelve, when the jury answered the issues sifbmitted to them in favour of plaintjiff, and. awarded her £1250 damages. ' Mr. Levi, for the defendant company, now moved for a new trial, first, on the ground of misdirection, his Honour having directed the jury that negligence on the part of the company's superintending engineer or chief oflicer was imputable to.the company, and secondly, that the verdict was against the weight of evidence.

Mr. Levi, in moving his motion, intimated that the whole of his argument hinged on tho contention that it was not competent for plaintiff to recover more than fisoo damages. Ho maintained that Section 14 of the Workers' Compensation Amendment Act, 1911, which provided that no servant should recover more than £500 for injuries sustained through the negligence of a fellowservant, was equally binding on the representatives of that servant if he wero killed by the accident.

His Honour : I may state at once, Mi*. Levi, that I have already decided that point against you. His Honour went oh to explain that argument was taken in connection jwith another case at Auckland on the dlst ult., Rovin v. U.S.S. Co. (in which Mr. O'Regan was also appearing for plaintiff), on the same point, and ho had now given judgment to the effect that, although a servant could not recover more than £500, yat there was no limitation in the case of any dependent of that servant if he were killed.

Mr. Levi replied that if such was the case he would not proceed with his argument, but he wan'tod his rights preserved in the event of deciding to go to the Court of Appeal. His Honour made a note accordingly, and ordered that judgment be entered for plaintiff . for £1250, with costs according to scale, witnesses' expanses and disbursements to bo fixed by the Registrar. Costs £7 7s were allowed plaintiff on the motion for judgment. Mr. P. J. O'Kegan appeared for plaintiff.