HARBOUR TRAFFIC

Evening Post, Volume XCVI, Issue 40, 15 August 1918, Page 8

HARBOUR TRAFFIC

ACCIDENT TO A PASSENGER

COURT PROCEEDINGS,

A case of a somewhat unusual nature was heard by Mr. S. E. M'Carthy, S.M., in the Magistrate's Court this morning, when Alfred John Dingle, motor engineer, fiona, Bay, claimed tb.e sum of £9 2s damagos from the Eastbourne Borough Council. Mr. G. Watson appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. H. Buddie for the Borough Council.

Plaintiff stated that on 22nd April of this year he was a passenger by the 5.20 p.m. boat from Wellington to Kona Bay. On arrival there the gangway was, as usual at that time, crowded, and it was impossible to see the end of it. He put one foot on the gangway, and the roll of the boat sent the roller of the gangway on to one- of his feet. It was a large iron roller, going the full width of the gangway. .Not long afterwards the use of the roller on the gangway was done away with, and a wheel on either side substituted. ' The boat was not well lighted near the gangway. The result of the accident was that one toe was burst under the nail, his boot was ruined, and he was unable to go to work next day. He valued his work at 5s an hour, and was unable to carry out his full measure of work for about a week. He communicated with the Borough Council on the subject, but got no satisfaction. ' He knew that similar accidents had occurred.

. In answer to Mr. Buddie, witness eaid there was the usual crowd on the gangway, and he knew from experience that he could not move quickly. He could not say that he knew the roller was on the gangway. As a rule, he did not. get to Rona, Bay by daylight, and he had not noticed the roller while boarding the boat in the morning. C. 6. Richards, secretary to the Eastbourne Ratepayers' Association, stated that ho had, on behalf of the association, previously written to the Borough Council pointing out the danger of the class of gangway in use on the council's boats.

_ Constable William D. Thompson, stationed at Eastbourne, said ■ that, on the night of the accident Dingle made a complaint to him. He knew of two similar accidents. In one case the roller went on to a child's foot, and he and the wharfinger had to lift the gangway off the foot. On another occasion a Mr. Warren

Mr. Buddie interjected that it ought to be proved that these cases were brought to the notice of the council.

His Worship said the action of the Ratepayers' Association was sufficient.

Witness said that since the roller had been done away with there had been no complaints made of such accidents.

To Mr. Buddie, witness so id it was not his duty to notify the council of the accident he witnessed. •

John Jones, wharfinger, Rona Bay, said he had seen two or three similar accidents. They were the cases of children, and he had had to take the gangway off their feet. He had hoard of no accidents since the gangway was altered and the wheels put on the'deck end. Mr. Buddie: .Can you suggest a remedy?

Witness: No; I have done what I could to warn people to be careful.

THE DEFENCE.

For the defence, Mr. Buddie submitted that plaintiff could not succeed unless his evidence proved that it was the existence of the roller on the gangway, and nothing else, that caused the injury. The roller was of a pattern used all over the world, and it people - were injured through, crowding round the gangway the council could not be held responsible. There was no known method of preventing the movement of the gangway in rough weather. To succeed, plaintiff would have to show that the placing of tho roller on the gangway was a negligent act. As a result of the increase of population a. bigger gangway %vas provided, and ..the council was justified in adopting' some method of preventing the gangway chafing the deck of the wharf. There was nothing negligent in that, and iE it did slightly increase tho danger to passengers it was for the passengers to take greater care. No doubt there had not been, so many accidents since the gangway was altered, but that was because the case had been talked about, ■and passengers were now taking the care that they should have taken before. Ho called

John William Sowers employed as leading hand on the Duchess at the time of the accident, who saicT he had helped to put. the gangway on the deck. He never heard anything about the accident. Passengers were always in a hurry to get off the gangway. There were three lights within six feet of the gangway. To Mr. Watson, he said his instructions were to warn passengers as to the gangway in rough weather. He had seen a child have its foot Imrt by the gang, way, but not seriously. Passengers as la rule did not wait to see whese they were going.

James S. Day, Town Clerk to the Eastbourne Borough Council and ferry manager,' said the gangway was a. new one, and larger tKkn the one previously in use. To prevent the end ploughing, into the deck of the wharf a roller was fitted and was in use from Christmas. Some hundreds and thousands of passeii' gers must have been put over it before any complaint was made.. The roller was as near "fool proof" as they could make it. A s soon as attention was drawn to the matter the Ferry Board asked the expert for a report, which he duly' furnished. He sent that report to the"Ratepayers' Association, and asked them for any suggestions, •at the same time 'remarking that it was problematical whether the proposed change would be an improvement. As a rule there was a "mad rush" to get off the vessel, and a man was appointed to control the traffic. In rough weather the gangway had to move with the vessel, and passengers must exorcise reasonable care. Tho only alternative was to put the passengers ashore in baskets. Even if there were no roller a passenger who did' not exercise care could, got his foot under the gangway. On thq evening of tl»e accident there was a choppy saa, enough to make a, passenger exercise care in landing. He had had no complaints about the lights. ■ ■ ' • To. Mr. Day : There were hundreds of boats in New Zealand fitted with similar gangways to that used by the Ferry Board. There had been no complaints about the gangway since the roller was taken off. The council recognised that tho people had got their backs up against the. roller, and therefore it was taken off. George Rowan, shipwright, in. the employ of the Eastbourne Borough Council, said he had been constructing gangways for the past twenty years. He had made gangways for the Union Company with rollers on, and he had seen them being used by the Union Company and on .the Tutanekai. He had "never seen an accident happen in their use. When the bigger gangway was provided by the Ferry Board it was on his advice, and tho roller was put on to prevent friction on tho deck of the wharf, and to reduce tho step to a. minimum. Ho could not suggest any kind of gangway which could obviate danger to the passenger in rough weather unless they exercised care.

JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT.

Tn giving his decision, the Magistrate said that if there was any risft in getting on or off the steamer by the gangway, tho passengers had to take that risk, unless it was a risk that could have beep reasonably provided against.. The «yi.

dence was not very convincing a» to whether or not that risk could be lessened by the use of some other kind of gangway, but tho evidence did go to show that the risk was greater when there was a crowd. Any person of ordinary observation would take steps to avoid an accident when a crowd was pushing behind. There was no obligation on tha part of the plaintiff to get into the crush. He should have waited until it had subsided. Judgment would be for the defendant, with 21s costs.