Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
This article displays in one automatically-generated column. View the full page to see article in its original form.


PLAINTIFF AWARDED £SOO. The action for damages, in which Robert Wadingham, miner, of Kuitangafa, claimed £2.000 from the New Zealand Coal and Oil Company in respect of injuries received by him from an accident in the Kaitangata mine on February 11, was concluded before His Honor Mr Justice dim and a jury of 12 last night, after three days’ hearing. Mr A. 8. Adams and Mr A. 0. Hanlon appeared for plaintiff, and Mr John .MacGregor and Mr W. C. MacGregor for defendants. The jury retired at & p.m.. and returned at 9.40 p.m. with the following answers to the issues submitted : (1) Wore the system of haulage and the appliances in connection therewith in the heading where the plaintiff was at the time of the accident dangerous to the workmen employed in that part of the mine by reason of—(а) The use of open hooks to attach tho empty box to the wire rope, or the absence of a chain between the. rope and hook or tho method of attaching the hook to tho rope? —No. Ib) Tho passing of the rope round the posts without living fastened thereto by a wheel or other appliances?— No. (c) The absence of any brakes or method of controlling the rope?— No. (2) If so, wa.s tho injury to tho plaintiff’ caused thereby?— No. (3) Could tho said system, if dangerous, have been made safe by the exercise of reasonable, care on the part of the defendant?— Not. necessary to answer. (4) Wa.s the plaintiff guilty of negligence by remaining 'Sffiero he did to wait lor his tmek? No. i 5) If so, was such negligence the cause of the injury to tho plaintiff?— No. (sa) If answers to (2) and (5) are No, was tho negligence of Dunn tho cause ox the injury?— Yes, (б) What damaged, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to?—£soo. The jury added tho following recommendation: —Tliat tho system of selfacters of the description in nee at the time of the accident, being dependent upon tho human equation, requires some safeguards. Judgment was accordingly entered for plaintiff for £SOO (less payment made, £65 3s 6d), costs according to scale; disbursements and witness’s expenses to be fixed bv the Registrar; second counsel allowed £js 5s for one day; witnesses who gave exclusive evidence on the issues on which plaintiff failed not allowed expenses.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

Bibliographic details

KAITANGATA JUNE ACCIDENT, Evening Star, Issue 15662, 28 November 1914

Word Count

KAITANGATA JUNE ACCIDENT Evening Star, Issue 15662, 28 November 1914