STRUCK BY CARGO

Evening Post, Volume CXVIII, Issue 121, 19 November 1934, Page 11

STRUCK BY CARGO

INJURED WATERSIDER

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES

Alleging that ho received injuries bocause Holm and Company/ Limited, shipping agents, of Wellington, used a weak cargo sling while ho was working for them, William Gordon Brown, a waterside worker, of Newlown, claimed £679 3s 2d, in addition to £129 la 4d already received, in the Supreme Court this morning. Holm and Company, Limited, stated in defence that thb plaintiff was injured through1 ordering a load to bo hoisted with a rope sling after the foreman had ordered a sling of the proper, strength to be used. The case is being heard by his Honour the Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers). Mr. F. W. Ongley is uppoar.ing for Brown, and Mr. G. G. Watson 'for Holm and Company, Limited. STATEMENT- OF CLAIM. . ' Tho plaintiff stated that whilo working on tho ship Abel Tasman at .Wellington on December 7, 1933, he was injured because of the negligence of the defendant company and their failure to tako reasonable and proper cars for the safety of the plaintiff. Particulars of Btich negligence and failure to tako reasonable and proper care were: —(1) The defendant company, attempted to lift a heavy load of cargo on a sling which was of insufficient strength for such purpose; ' nnd knew, or ought to havo known, that the sling was of insufficient strength for tne purpose; (2) tho defendant company provided a sling of insufficient strength for lifting a heavy load of cargo. Tho statement of claim further set out that tho sling used broke and al- ', lowed the load being hoisted to, fall on the plaintiff. The defendant company 1 had attempted to lift a load exceeding 20cwt on a rope sling not moro than 2Jin in circumference when it was old and greatly deteriorated. . The plaintiff had suffered a compound fracture of his right leg, und because of that would be 'unfit for work for an indefinite period. The plaintiff claimed:—l. Special damages: (a) Loss of earnings, iil76j (b) hospital expenses, £48 19s 6d; (c) medical expenses, £26 ss; (d) massago treatment, £21; and (c) domestic service and maintenance, £36;»atotal of £308 4s 6d. 2. General damages, £500; less. £129 Is 4d received from the defendant company as compensation in respect of the injury, making a net claim of £679 3s 2d. LIABILITY DENIED. ' The defence was a general denial of liability other than for the sum received by the plaintiff. As a further defence the defendant company claimed'that it' it was proved that the plaintiff was injured in consequence of a sling breaking and a load . of cargo falling on him, the injury was . the consequence of his own"-negligence in disobeying the foreman's orders to use a wire sling for tho load, using a rope sling suitable only for light cargo when proper andi'suitablo gear was pro.vided, and giving orders to thn loading hands to load cargo. ' ' Mr.- Ongloy said the defendant company admitted that tho load hoisted was much too heavy for tho sling vised, but claimed that it was not responsible for tho sling being used. Tho question • for the Court to decide was whether the company was responsible for lifting, the ■ load of not. ■ , ■ , 1 PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE. William Gordon Brown, tho plaintiff, j .said^that.Jie had been working on,* the waterfront-' for ■' about 20 years., . He was assisting in loading the Abel Tasman when tho sling broke and tho load fell and rolled on to him, breaking.his leg. Continuing, witness gave details "of his earnings before the time of the accident. , ' . -In reply'to Mr. Watson, the plaintiff said he .did not know that tho load was | „being hoisted until it fell and rolled on him. He had not ordered the hoist, and did not know a wife sling was being procured for tho load.' •" Frank Stanbridge, a waterside worker, of Johnsonville, who was in phargc of the crane that' made the hoist, said that the officer in charge of tho loading ordered him to double his gear and lift the load. He did not know what was in the sling at the time, but discovered later that it was an iron roller. Two men on tho wharf hooked the sling on nnd he swung it aboard, but tho sling broke and tho roller fell to tho deck and rolled on to Brown.. ' , In reply to Mr. Watson, witness stated positively that ho had received ,h is signal to lift from the labour foreman .for Holm and Company. Counsel for the plaintiff proceeded to call' evidence -regarding the unsuitability Of tho sling used, but Mr. Watson said it was admitted by 'tlio • defendant company that the" .sling was unsuitable, but it was contended that' plaintiff was tho author Of his own misfortune. EVIDENCE FOR DEFENCE. Frederick William Ness, a sea captain, employed on the wharf, said ho had ordered two wire slings for hoisting the two, rollers. Witness went in search of slings, and a \vorker named Galley secured 'them for him. While witness was away from the rollers ono was lifted by/the rope sling. Ho did 1 not know who -ordered tho hoist,* and would not havo permitted tho lift if ho had been there. Before going* to get the "wire slings ho had ordered the man in charge of tho crane to double up his gear for a heavy lift.

(Proceeding.)