PETONE ACCIDENT

Evening Post, Issue 11, 13 July 1936, Page 11

PETONE ACCIDENT

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES

.NEGLIGENCE ALLEGED

Allegations of negligence were made by both sides in the Supreme Court today in a claim for damages arising from a scaffolding accident which occurred at Petone on January 9, 1935.

The plaintiff was Leonard \ Philip Parker Double,, a carpenter, of Petone, and the defendant was August Victor Swanson, a builder and contractor, of Wellington. Mr. Justice Johnston was on the Bench. Mr. jP. J. O'Regan conducted the case for the plaintiff and Mr. H. F. O'Leary, K.C., and Mr. E. D. Blundell appeared for the defence. '

In his statement of claim Double said that on January 9,1935, he was employed Uy the defendant on the Todd Motors building in McKenzie Street, Petone. In the course of his work he was standing on a scaffold at a height of not. less than twelve feet when it collapsed and he received injuries which included a compound fracture of the left leg near the ankle, as the result of which he had since been totally disabled from work and would have his earning capacity reduced.

The accident, the statement of claim alleged, was due to negligence on the part of the defendant in that (a) one of the brackets' designed to support the scaffold was not secured to the wall, arid (b) the'scaffolding was not erected in conformity with the Scaffolding and; Excavation Act, 1908. Liability, pursuant to the Workers' Compensation Act, had been admitted and the plaintiff had received compensation for which he. gave credit.. He claimed damages totalling £1189 15s, of which £750 was claimed as general damages and the rest as special damages.

A denial of the plaintiff's version of the accident was contained in the statement of defence, which pleaded that if it was proved that the plaintiff was injured in the manner alleged or otherwise through the collapse of the scaffold such collapse was caused by the negligence of the plaintiff in that he placed the plank lying between the last two brackets at the end of the scaffold and affixed by a nail to the ]ast bracket in such a manner that a portion rested upon another plank. ' The result, it was alleged, was that when the plaintiff and/or a fellow-worker or workers stood upon the end overlapping their, weight caused the opposite end of the plank to rise," thereby lifting the bracket out of the eye-bolt and 'causing that part of the scaffold to collapse.

Evidence was called on both sides, largely- on- technical questions dealing with scaffolding erection and with the particular type of bracket used.

Counsel illustrated their arguments and'the evidence by the Use of a bracket and model scaffolding.

(Proceeding.)