DAMAGES CLAIMED

Evening Post, Volume CV, Issue 127, 31 May 1928, Page 12

DAMAGES CLAIMED

SEQUEL TO ACCIDENT Further evidence in the claim of Robert Davics, a metalworker's assistant, against the Sir William Arrol Company, Ltd., for £800 damages as the result'of an accident at Petone in which the plaintiff lost two fingers, was heard in the Supreme Court yesterday afternoon, before Mr. Justice Smith. Mr. 0. C. Mazengarb appeared for the pjaintifr and Mr. G. G. Watson for the defendant company. It was contended by several witnesses that the method of lifting the bars used by the company was dangerous unless timber was employed to lower the load on to which the central sling was'being adjusted. Before calling evidence, Mr. Watson said that while the accident was regrettable, it was inevitable under the circumstances. The ease was a proper one for the application of the Workers' Compensation Act, under which the plaintiff would probably be assured of something between £250 and £300, -but, counsel suggested, it was not a case where the plaintiff was entitled to damages at common law, and it was rather puzzling that such an action should have been brought. The plaintiff had already received about £60 in compensation. Counsel said that expert evidence would be given that the method used by the company was the best method. William Draper, foreman of the gang in which the. plaintiff was working, said that timber was available near where.,the bars were being lifted, but Davies made no effort to get any. At the time of the accident, Davies had threaded.one end of the sling thrqugh the other, and witness, saw him pull his injured hand out of the loop. In witness's opinion there was no need for timber at. that time, but timber was used in many other cases. At this stage the case was adjourned until this morning. Cross-examined by Mr Mazengarb to-day, William Draper, the foreman, admittert.that there was always a certain amount of danger on such jobs, but it could be guarded against by using caution and keeping the hands clear of the sling. If he had thought the lift dangerous he would have ordered timber to be put in; but he considered it unnecessary. On a iinc day a tilt of 15 degrees in the bars would be quite safe, and the day of the accident was fine. Witness admitted that the crane driver complained about the timber used in the lifting, but he complained about • everything else, too. He also admitted that the manager had ordered the timber' to be changed, but this was more because he wished to please, the crane driver than because he thought the timber not safe and liable to break. To Mr. Watson: In1 the work which was being done tjherc were several dangers to be guarded against: the wrong method of lifting might be used, the load might bo 100 big. or the men might be in a dangerous place. Davies when he first s%}v him after the accident was pulling his hand out of the eye of the sling. After the accident ho say Davies several times, but no suggestion was made as to the use of timber in the lifting. it was quite impossible to lay down any general regulations about the method to be used in lifting, as each bundle was liable to present different difficulties. The factor which determined which particular bars -would bo lifted was their position in the heap; the sling would be put wherever was most convenient. . ' (Proceeding.)