IN THE "COFFIN"

Evening Post, Volume CVIII, Issue 83, 4 October 1929, Page 17

IN THE "COFFIN"

ACCIDENT ON STEAMER

CLAIM MADE FOR DAMAGES

Negligence on the part of a workman employed by the Shaw, Savill Co. on the overseas steamer Otira in March last was blame-d in the Magistrate's Court yesterday by Maurice O 'Connor, a labourer, for injuries to his back wbieli, he said, in his statement of claim, had disabled him for some months and would further disable him for a considerable period. O'Connor claimed £247 17s 5d damages from the company.

Mr. E. Pago, S.M., was on tbo Bench. The plaintiff was represented by Mr. E. P. Hay, arid Mr. H. 1\ O'Leary appeared for the Shaw, Savill Company. Outlining the case for the plaintiff, Mr.- Hay said that on 28th March, last, O'Connor, with otlior men, waa working on the main floor of a hold on the Otira helping to discharge cargo- The ship had somewhat of a cant from stern to bow, and when O'Connor was moving a barrel of heavy substance into position to be taken up from tho hold by a sling, it rolled across the floor of tho hold into the "coffin," a pit or recess, twelve to fourteen feet deep, sunk in the floor. O 'Connor, with another man, then went down into tho "coffin" to put the sling round tho cask, and while doing this it was alleged that one of tho other members.of the gang of workers negligently threw down a piece of timber and struck O'Connor on the back, injuring hia spine and incapacitating him for six months. The Megligence complained of was that by a bellow servant, over which it was .claimed the employing company had a twofold responsibility. It was alleged that the accident was caused through the negligence of tho workman in failing, to observe the plaintiff working in the- <<coffittA' and by him throwing dunnago into7 the "coffin" without taking sufficient precaution.

Evidence for the plaintiff was then given along these lines.

Called by the defence, Dr. Giesen said ho examined O'Connor on behalf of the defendant company in May with the knowledge that he had been struck on the back. No injuries wore observable, but the plaintiff was complaining of a continuous pain in the lower part of his back. He regarded 6 as a man rapidly recovering,: and thought he would be able to go back to work in from two .to- three, weeks., A.nionth later ho. saw the .plaintiff, and to-his surprise again yesterday, O'Connor on both occasions complaining that he still had the continuous' pain i» the back. Ho thought that O 'Connor would return to- work as soon as the Court proceedings wove completed.

In answer to Mr. Hay, Dr. Giesen said that in the circumstances the one man who could^say he had a pain in his back, at the.pi'esent time -was O'Connor.

Thomas Crates, the last witness called for the plaintiff and who threw- the piece of timber alleged to have caused the injuries to O'Connor, in answer to. Mr. O'Leary, said1 that some - time must have elapsed between tho moment the barrel fell into the "coffin" and itlie time the accident occurred. it [was a common practice to" throw dunnage into tho ';• coffin." Ho threw a thin pieeo of timber and he /.was. surprised at the alleged result. ; For the defence, Mr. O'Leaty submitted.. that there. was no■= negligence for which -the company could bo held liable. lie suggested that what actually happened was that as soon as tho barrel fell into the "coffin," Crates, told O'Connor that he had bettor go down and "sling" it, and that instead of going do'vyu at once, O'Connor waited 20 minutes, with the result, that Crates, when he throw thepiepe of timber, did not know that the plain-, tiff was in the '^cofflu^' -.' ;

After two witnesses for the defence had been called, the Magistrate gave his decision. . Ho said it must bo obvious from the facts,that Crates either did not know O'Connor had gone into the "coffin" or, if he knew, had forgotten about'it;' because it was not the action of any workman with any common sense to throw a piece of timr bcr of some weight down into the "coffin" with the knowledge that one of his mates,was there. Looking at all tho facts, it seemed to him to havo been negligent on the part of Crates not to have soen whether tho well was clear before throwing the timber. On tho primary question of negligeuco he thought tho plaintiff was entitled to succeed.

Eogarding tho amount of damages to bo awarded, Mr. Pago said ho thought the plaintiff might havo dono more in tho way of attempting work since the accident ' and that was supported to somo extent by tho modical evidence. He would award a gross amount of iESO, plus £10 10s medical exponses, with a deduction of £42 7s la paid to tho plaintiff by the company, leaving ft balance of £48 2s lid. The plaintiff was also awarded costs.