COMPENSATION CLAIM

Evening Post, Volume CVI, Issue 36, 11 August 1923, Page 3

COMPENSATION CLAIM

CONTRACTOR'S LABOURER SUC-

CESSFUL.

Conclusion was reached at the Supreme Court yesterday afternoon in the case of John Alexander Holloway against Charles Richard Lamb, a claim by a contractor's labourer against his employer for damages in respect of injuries received. The case, which occupied two days, was heard by Mr. Justice Salmond and a jury of twelve.

Mr. H .H. Cornish appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. P. H. Putnam for the defendant.

_ In his statement of claim, the plaintiff alleged that he had been operating a derrick, the property of his employer, the defendant, on the second floor of a building in Holland street, on 10th October last. The derrick was fastened by three 8-inch bolt to a plan lying across the joists with 4-inch nails. This, the plaintiff alleged, was an improper' and negligent manner of anchoring the derrick, which, he said, should have been fixed by long bolts passing through each of its leijs or sleepers, pa6t the joists into cleats or wooden straps running underneath the joists. The necessary bolts and cleats were always supplied to purchasers of this kind of derrick and the defendant had them. While a barrow of mortar was being raised by plaintiff by means of the derrick, the plank to which it was fixed and on which the plaintiff was standing, came away suddenly from the joists and tilted over, canting'the derrick and causing the plaintiff to fall a distance of 20 to 26 feet on to the ground floor. In consequence of this fall, plaintiff sustained severe injuries to his left foot which necessitate his removal to the Public Hospital, where he was treated for several weeks. It was admitted that theae injuries would cause total incapacity for heavy work for "a further period of at least 6 months, after which time plaintiff would be able at first for only light work. Plaintiff therefore claimed the sum of £750, less £109 already paid by weekly 'instalments under The Workers' Compensation Act, and £41 paid by the employer, for which sums he .gave credit. . For the defence it was contended: that !i? c <*eli riok was tod in position not by the defendant, its owner (who had had it brought on to the premises), but by the foreman of the building owner, for whose acts the defendant was not responeible. It was further contended that in any case the mode of - anchoring ■ the derrick was a safe one, having been approved by the scaffolding inspector when the derrick waa in position on a lower floor.

In his evidence the defendant admitted that though he had not himself erected the derrick, he had_seen it at work two days before the accident, being then working on the floor when it was erected. He admitted that he had not then examined the derrick to see if its anchorage was safe.

The jury, after an hour*6 retirement, brought in a verdict for the. plaintiff for -£450,' less: the £15Q: already paid,: and for which credit was given. Judgment was' therefore entered for' the plaintiff, for £300 and costs, leave being reserved for defendant, at his counsel's request, to move for a new trial on the ground that the verdict was against, the weight of evidence. ■