INJURED FINGER

Evening Post, Volume CXVII, Issue 127, 31 May 1934, Page 9

INJURED FINGER

DEATH FROM TETAjSTJS

CRITICISM OF TREATMENT

SETTLEMENT OF ACTION

On terms agreed upon out of Court between the parties, and wiiich .."were not disclosed, a settlement was reached today, before any evidence had been called for the defence, in the Supreme Court case in which Arthur . William lyes, civil-servant, of Petone,'''claimed' £600 compensatio.n from' Leatherfbld, Ltd., manufacturers of leather mats and floor coverings, in respect of the death of his son, Arthur Eoberfc Ives, aged 24." The case was struck out by Mr. Justice Heed as being' settled. ' The deceased had a finger crushed when he was operating a press at the defendant company's factory in Lower Hutt on November 3 last. '-'He was treated 'as an outpatient at the Wellington " Hospital;- Tetanus: developed ten days after . the accident, and he died on; November 24.': The- hearing of the case began on- ; Tuesday. Mr. W. P. Boilings appeared • l.or. the, plaintiff, and Mr. W.E.. Leicester for the defendant company.. for the plaintiff concluded yesterday afternoon, and in outlining the case for the defence before the.Court adjourned until today. Mrl Leicester criticised the fact that anti-tetanic/serum, had not been given ' to™ the -deceased^heni ha was taken to the hospital, on the "day of the accident. '■ \.r: S .'.':,.>. A."'; ■:.'. ' . SinTABiLITY OF "PRESS, " . with the plaintiff's allegation that the; press did not "comply with provisions of the Inspection of Machinery Act, 1928, Mr. Leicester said that during a period of eight years-the. machine had been inspected; at intervals by an inspector of-factories.- It had been found suitable, and it was-to be assumed that it complied with the Act in the form in which it was used. The technical witnesses for the' plaintiff agreed that with a, machine "of such'a tyPe guarding was impossible, because it was not fitted, with a fixed die. The die was specially made by a manufacturing engineer for the jpurpose. ; for which-it < was used, and in Ms opinion and that of others" with considerable experience the die was perfectly suitable if used with. care. !In- regard to the allegation that the press was operated in such a manner .as to be dangerous to those feeding it, it was difficult to see how the, plaintiff,could succeed ,on that, because "the method of operation, if^ anything, was . ultra-care-ful. 'It must be obvious.', that the method used for cutting-but by. the company was very slow. The defence contended that the actual;-- mode, of operation was simplicity itself as long as reasonable care- - was exercised. It, was not a case" of employees being taught to operate a highly-technical machine. ■ \ .: . Mr. Leicester dealt at some length with-ttio objections of a technical kind raised by witnesses for the plaintiff against the press. He said that the evidence for the defence was that over a period of. years the machine had been; found suitable' If or. cutting zinc plates, and it -was' submitted thait while compared-with a machine with, a fixed die it did not show up very well, nevertheless the test of its suitability, must be whetherjt did the work, or not. In point of. fact.it .had always. done the work and had done' it satisfactorily. HOSPITAL TEEATMENT." / After discussing the question of con« tributary negligence alleged .by the defence, .Mr. Leicester submitted it waa open for the Court to consider the evidence of the doctor as to the cause of death. It was perfectly true "that, the tetanus germ might have, and.probably; did, enter Ives Js injured finger at the time of the accident, but it was submitted that; the medical evidence seemed to prove conclusively that if the finger.had been treated as it should have been immediately, after the accident, in the words of one doctor; tetanus most,.;-:certainly, would haye i ..-been. arrested, and in the words, of the other it probably would hive been arrested. The best _ that could be said was that the hospital authorities appeared to have been neglectful. It .. would be open to the Court to find that the; real negligence was the negligence of" a third party- in other words,- the'negligence of the . hospital ; authorities/ and that that negligence constituted S. novus actus intcrveniens which rendered any negligence, if there; were ' negligence,' on the part of the :def endant company: of no importance in the action.- -:< ■ His Honour: Have you any.authority for that—that the act of a medical man afterwards could be treated as a noyus actus interveniens? Mr. Leicester: Well,-it" would be a negligent omission, would it not, your Honour? - \ : : - ■-..•■ : 'His Honour said he could see the principle upon which ■ counsel ; was arguing. ■ ■■■ ■ ' : : ".; . ". .-■•■- -. ■; Mr. Leicester said that perhaps :before the case ended he might; be able to assist the Court.on the point. *.;; His Honour:' It is a nice point really. Mr. Boilings pointed out that ' there was some jr'airlj- recent authority on the doctrine of novus ; actus interveniens. It had' been gone into fully in • certain negligence cases in England, although none of the cases were-similar, to the present one. " -• ; As.to whether tte plaintiff and Ma wife had suffered any real pecuniary, loss by the death of their son, Mr. Leicester pointed but that although." it • was perhaps a somewhat cold attitude to adopt, nevertheless the authorities made it plain that the basis of this type of action was either an" actual financial loss or. the loss,of reasonable immediate financial benefits. .The deceased was earning 10s a week, and there were no prospects of immediate benefits so far as the boy was concerned. It would appear that the. family, derived no real benefit from' his earnings. ' ' ' ''-. '• ■'- The Court -adjourned until today, arid, when.. it resumed Mr. Leicester said he was glad to be able to say that a settlement had been arrived at. The case, he thought, could bo properly struck.out, as- the arrangement made was quite satisfactory to both counsel* Mr. Rollings agreed .to this course.