SEQUEL TO DEATH

Evening Post, Volume CXXIV, Issue 27, 31 July 1937, Page 11

SEQUEL TO DEATH

COMPANY CHARGED.

LIABILITY. DENIED

A FALLING HATCH-BEAM

The death on.March 3 of a waterside worker, Gordon Manning, when he was struck by a steel hatch-beam in the ■'■hold oi the" motor-ship Durham, then loading at Wellington, had a sequel in the Magistrate's Court yesterday afternoon, when the Marine Department charged the- New Zealand Shipping Company before Mr. J. H. Luxford, S.M., with committing a breach of the Wellington Harbour Board's . regulations concerning the securing of hatchbeams.- ■ . Mr. E. Parry, who appeared on behalf of. the master and chief officer, explained that he had intended to ask for an adjournment if there was anything reflecting on the master or chief officer.;; He had the'assurance of counsel for the informant, however, that no such reflection should be cast. If . counsel gave that assurance, he did not intend to watch the case. Dr. N. A. Foden, for the Marine Department, said that the.case was levelled at the New Zealand Shipping Company. . He willingly gave the assurance required. The information was originally laid in April. It was expected- that the 'vessel would come back, but there was no immediate prospect of that. , . Mr. W. P. Shorland, who appeared for the company, said that. he asked for an adjournment in the eai-Jy stages in order to find out when the ship was coming back. She was not the property of the company. He did not agree with the indemnity given to the officers toy Dr. Foden. Dr. Foden. cited regulations as to the imposition of liability on various persons. It was explained by Mr. Shorland that the vessel belonged to the Federal Company. The New Zealand Shipping Company's duties lay in stevedoring the.vessel. . .. ' . .Dr. Foden. offered to waive all rules of evidence necessary and allow any testimony or statement which might be helpful. He said that the case was in the nature of a test case, and was breaking new ground. The Magistrate gave an . assurance that .he would watch for any introduction of evidence against the officers. THEORY OF ACCIDENT. Louis Fenton, inspector of gear for the Marine Department, produced a model of the scene of the accident. He was on the scene at about 4 p.m. on March 3. The accident occurred at 3.45 p.m. Witness then showed by means of the model how the accident occurred. It was his theory that a moving cargo tray caught in and dislodged the beam., He produced one bolt which was handed to him by the chief .^officer: A reproduction of the beam, slot ori the starboard side, where the bolt was found, was produced. Its condition was such as would have been caused if the beam had levered on the groove. Cross-examined by Mr. Shorland, he said that he had not previously examined the hatch. All other regulations with regard to the hatch-beam had been carried out, and the gear was in perfect condition. He did not examine; the tray that .was supposedto be the cause of the accident. Witness stated thatat the inquest he had men-tioned-the condition of the starboard groove.' ' - ' . ' Captain Ashlon James Naylor, in charge,of the stevedoring operations of the.company, said that he was not about at,the time of the accident. A report produced was drawn up from information .available shortly after the accident, and was signed by him. ' ' Cross-examined by Mr. Shorland, he said that he was fully instructed as to" the observance of the regulations. On that day there was one foreman in charge, of all work, one on the foredeck.'.and one on .the after-deck. Their job was to supervise the work. Hatchmen were also employed to keep an eye on the slings. The stevedores opened the hold, and when refrigerated cargo. was being loaded, only part of the hatch was opened. It was usually the job of the ship's carpenter to secure the beams, and an officer was stationed at each end of the ship to see that it was done. The foreman of the stevedores- and also the hatchmen would-see if the bolts were in position.- The hatch-beams of the Durham were made of mild steel, and were secured in the slots by bolts. The Durham's derricks were all tested for a- 10-ton-safe working load. The test was usually made by the lifting of 50 per cent, overweight. This was usually done prior to the ship leaving England. ■ ' ' When he examined the tray, the rope becket was intact, and there was no mark on the tray. He did not think that there was any possibility of the tray. having ' removsd the beam. The breaking strain of the rope becket would be less than a ton, and that of the bolt about eight tons. HOOK OR TRAY? • In reply to a question by Dr. Foden, witness said that in his opinion the hook- caught in the beam. The hook • was constructed to avoid such catching, and only in a particular combination of circumstances would such an occurrence come about. He had supervised lifts of-.up to 42 tons, .and there Avas no practicable way of 'securing a beam against- such a strain. . Arthur Henry Burns, winchman on •the port winch, said that he saw the beam lift out of the slot. The tray was hooked on by the wire rope, not on the becket, where it should have been hooked.. There was a bolt in the starboard end of the beam, but not in the port end. The tray lifted the beam about a foot, held it for a while, and then the beam dropped down into the hold. Cross-examined by. Mr. Shorland, witness said that he was in a half-sitting position operating the yard-arm winch. He had no control over the direction .of the tray at that time. It was the way .'the beam was- displaced that led him to believe there was no bolt on the port side. He did not see anyone put any bolts in the beams. The "bolt.that was there was not put in, unless it was done during the lunch hour. ■ Archibald Charles Mitchell, engineer, ■said' that it was exceedingly unlikely that the beam was bolted at both ends. A strain amidships of 13 to .15 tons would be necessary to sheer a bolt, and the-friction would force the tray away. There could have been no nut on-the bolt recovered, and it could not have been pushed all the way into the hole. The condition of the groove was -consonant with that theory. DEMONSTRATION IN COURT. He produced two bolts made of lead, but otherwise identical with the bolt recovered from the groove. With a wooden lever, he said, he had subjected one of the lead bolts to similar treatment to that which the recovered bolt had received. The results were very similar. A similar experiment carried out in court bori this out, except that the lead bolt sheared.

Mr. .Shorland stated that the company considered that it was not liable, first, because it could be proved that the bolts were securely fastened,-and, secondly, because the company was not a person within the meaning of the regulation.

George Johnston, hatchman on the

Durham on the day of the accident, said that as soon as the hatch tops came oil he put in the port bolt and then the starboard one. When the Iray came up, the hook caught the beam. The winchman. did not see his signal, and the winch was not stopped in time. ■ . •

Cross-examined by Mr. Foden, witness said that he saw the beam- -lift about a foot. The, winches were very powerful. He would expect the bolt to be there at 3 o'clock. No nuts were used on the bolts.

William Hyde, foreman stevedore, said that when he went aboard the ship in the morning the ship's carpenter had the bolts in his. hand. The bolts were in place before the work began. In reply to the Magistrate, he said that usually there was nothing to worry about once the bolts were in.

The Magistrate then gave his finding as to facts. The beam was fastened at some stage, but immediately before the accident there was only one bolt secured. There was no indication as to how the other became unattached. The question remained whether the omission was absolute. He intimated that he would hear counsel on Wednesday.

Mr. Shorland said he would submit that if the regulation threw any duty on the company it was to secure the hatch before work began.