KAITANGATA MINE ACCIDENT
CLAIM OF £2,000. The case of Robert Waddinghnm (miner) v. Tho New 7.ealand_ Coal and Oil Company was continued in tho Supreme Court this morning before Mr Justici Sim and a jury of 12. Plaintiff claimed £2,000 damages for injuries sustained in an accident in the Kaitnngata No. 1 mine in February. Messrs Adams and llanlon anpeared for plaintiff, and Messrs John MacGregor and W. C. MacGregor for defendant company. It should be explained that a truck became detached, and the back-lash of the wire rope is the presumed cause of tha accident. Tha cross-examination of Alex. Sinclair Gillandcrs (manager of tha mine) cornminced this morning. Ho stated that while a hempen rope mifdit hold a certain weight when put in, an hour or two lat-.n- it miotht not hold a quarter of that v.'eight under mine conditions. That was why wire was used. As for spring hooks i-.nd safety hooks, his experience was that they easily got out of order. Win. Proctor (undervicwer) said that a chain would not have made the rope snfer, but actually more dangerous. Th*ro wero liable to bo flaws in a chain which could not be easily detected, wheror l s anything wrong with wire could bo easily detected. Chains were used for the convenience of the boys taking the rope off the boxes when the boxes were in motion. The chain was easier to get hold of. By means of it the boxns could bo unhooked while the rope was in motion.
Mr Hanlnn : Did not you say on the 12th (tho day after the accident) that this whole thing (the appliance) should go—lock, stock, "and barrel—to the top ? Witness : No, I nover said that to anyone. Witness added that it would not have been- safer to have a brake—it would onlv have been an ornament. Daniel Wilson 'the other underviewer) said under cross-examination that he was not aware of the breaking strain of the rope used. If the rope bad not Veen so pliable as this one was it would have been advisable to havo a chain. He had known hoo!t3 to come out with the chain as well. Mr If anion : Knowing that tho hooks do come out with or without, the chain, what precaution was taken by the company to prevent their workmen from beina; injured ? What precautions were taken to protect workmen from what frequently happens—a runaway, and tho rone lashing in those dark headings?— Witness pointed to the apparatus as sufficient. Mr Hanlon : What precautions did they take to prevent the back-lash knocking other workmen on the head, as it did Waddiugham ? Witness : None. Re-examined, witness said that no precaution was necessary, and plaintiff had no need to go where he was for the truck. Latham O. Real (engineer) described the appliance as the best he could conceive of for the purpose. Ffe wou'd sooner have that than a spring hook in a coal mine. In 30 .years ho nad nover seen a spring hook used. Tho roads were dirty, and swivel hooks would bo just as likely to clog with dirt. Tho best precaution was for a man to keep on the sheltered side when a jig was working. There was no precaution for a backlash that would not create another kind of danger. The caso was proceeding this afternoon.
Permanent link to this item
KAITANGATA MINE ACCIDENT, Evening Star, Issue 15661, 27 November 1914
KAITANGATA MINE ACCIDENT Evening Star, Issue 15661, 27 November 1914
Using This Item
Allied Press Ltd is the copyright owner for the Evening Star. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons New Zealand BY-NC-SA licence. This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Allied Press Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.