INJURIES TO HAND

Evening Post, Volume CV, Issue 126, 30 May 1928, Page 11

INJURIES TO HAND

METAL WORKER'S CLAIM An accident which occurred at Petono in December last during the construction of the now railway workshops had its sequel in the Supreme Court to-day, ■ when Robert Davies, a metal worker's assistant, claimed £800 damages from the Sir William Arroll Co., Ltd., contractors, alleging negligence. Mr. O. G. Mazengarb appeared : fqr the plaintiff, arid Mr. G. 6. Watson for the defendant" company. In opening his ease, Mr. Mazengarb said that at the time of the accident the plaintiff was engaged with others in lifting steel bars with, the aid of a crane. The bars were lying in heaps, •and their ends were,not level. It was usual to lift six bars at a time, but on this occasion twelve bars were being lifted. A temporary sling was put round one end of the bundle, which was then lifted a few feet from the ground to enable a permanent sling to be placed .round the middle. This method,.counsel considered^ ,was the most dangerous of all the methods of lifting bars, and was simply inviting accident. The plaintiff was in the act, of placing the permanent1 sling in posi- [ tion when, the eight bars which were "not gripped by the sling slipped off the other bars and crushed his left hand. He lost two fingers, and the other two were badly lacerated and rendered useless. ' Ccmnsel said it was suggested that any of several, other methods of lifting the bars could 'have been, used with greater safety.l His Honour (Mr. Justice Smith): "Is it an isolated occurrence for somo of the bars to fall dutf"., . • Counsel: . "Wo say it is something that be provided against. The method used is a risky one, and so far as I can gather, is not in use anywhere else in the district." - The plaintiff gave evidence that the ends of only four of the bars were gripped by the sling. He had done no work since the accident. Compensation was paid at tho rate of £3 7s 8d por week up to sth April. In reply to Mr. Watson, witness admitted tl'mtdui'ing the time he.was receiving compensation ho had made no complaint that the accident was duo to the company's negligence. He denied that the. sling was threaded at the' time of the accident, and that his loft hand was in the loop, and was • caught when tho sling tightened after tho fall. , ' ■ ... Covroborativo evidence was called. ■ ' '•. (Proewding.)