ACCIDENT ON HULK

Evening Post, Volume CX, Issue 144, 16 December 1930, Page 13

ACCIDENT ON HULK

WATERSIDER INJURED

CLAIM FOR £2150 DAMAGES

Damages amounting to £2150 were claimed by John Udall, waterside worker, of WellingtoHj in an action brought against the Holm Shipping Company, Ltd:, in the Supreme Court to-day, befor.o" his-Honour the Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers). The case was a i sequel to an accident which occurred on the evening of 4th March, 1930, while the plaintiff was employed in handling coal on the defendant's hulk, the Holmwood. Mr. F. W. Ongley, with him Mr. C. H. Arndt, appeared for the plaintiff, I and Mr. H. F. O 'Leary, with him Mr. |E. D. Bhmdell, for the defendant. The plaintiff; in his statement of claim set out that while he and others were engaged in. hunkering the steamer John the grab, working the coal was allowed to discharge its contents so that some, of the coal fell on the plaintiff. He- was obliged to, move quickly to a place of safety, and in doing so he fell into a "trimming" hole on the deck, which was unlighted and unprotected. It was alleged that the company had been negligent in. failing to provide sufficient electric light to enable the.men to work in reasonable safety; in, permitting the hole to remain open unlighted and unprotected; and in allowing the grab to be operated when there was not sufficient light for reasonable- safety.. The plaintiff alleged that he had been totally incapacitated since the accident, having been injured in the region of the right thigh, hip, and groin. He claimed £.150 10s special damages, after allowing for £55 paid under the Workers' Compensation Act, and £2000 general damages. He also claimed the right-to further payments under the Act in the event of the defendant being held not liable independently of the Act. ' NEGLIGENCE DENIED. Tho. defence denied any negligence, and it was urged that the plaintiff could have avoided tho accident by tho exercise of reasonable earo. Ho was accustomed, to waterside work, find well knew that when the grab was working coal it did not drop it in one particular place but spread it out over tho deck, and it was therefore necessary to keep away from tho place where l-iio coal fell. If the plaintiff stood whore coal could fall on him, he was guilty of negligence, which was Hie cause of the accident. Jjn evidence the plaintiff said thai during the early part of the evening they were relying on the lima, for light, but when the liolmwood's deck -was piled high with coal from the Komata the ilma's. gear was dismantled and they were left without light. The foreman, Scantlebury, then asked witness and another man to stay on, saying that he had to bunker the John. They protested against working ii tho dark, and Scantlebury brought jjJhurricnne lamp find they proceeded to use the hulk's gear. The 'accident occurred while (ScflirUebuvy was at the 'winch. The grab jammed overhead when an i.-JTort j was being made to adjust the derrick and tho coal foil all round witness. He jumped out of the way and fell into the hold.' Tin' evidence of several doctors was ji/so heard. j ('Proceeding'.^