WIDOW’S CLAIM

Evening Star, Issue 19638, 18 August 1927, Page 6

WIDOW’S CLAIM

ACCIDENT IN RAILWAY YARD HUSBAND'S DEATH FROM INJURIES A claim by Isabel Jane Palmer lor £2,000 from the Crown was heard this mommy; hel'oro His Honor Mr Justice Sim and n special jury. Mr J. 11. Callan. with him Mr A. N. Haggitt, appeared for the supplicant, and Mr F. B. Adams lor the respondent. The supplicant’s petition set out that, on December 21, 15126, Percy Nathaniel Palmer, husband of the supplicant, was engaged in the course of his employment by Messrs Dalgoty and Co. covering some stationary wool wagons belonging to the Railway Department; that Avhile lie was so employed a rake of wagons was .shunted against the wool wagons, whereby Paliifcr was mushed, and received injuries from which ho died on December 22; that the accident and crushing and injuries were caused by the negligence of certain servants of the Railway Department; that the negligence consisted in not keeping a proper look-out, in there being no shunter walking ahead of the rake of wagons, in failing to observe that the deceased was working at iho stationary wool wagons, and in shunting against the wool wagons without giving any warning of the intention to shunt or of the approach of the shun!.. The widow, who had eight children, all. of whom were infants, therefore claimed £2,000 damages.

The answer of the Crown was i lia I, Dalgcty and Co. laid certain rights in connection with the railway siding leading to the running track on which the accident occurred) and was entitled to move wagons from the siding on to the running track and leave them there for removal by the servants of tho Railway Department, but was not entitled, nor was the deceased entitled, to cover any wagon or to do any oilier act in relation thereto on the track; that no servant of the Railway Department was aware that I lie deceased was on or about the running track at the lime of the accident; that it was denied that any servant of the Railway Department; was guilty of negligence.: that those in charge kept a proper look-out, and took all reasonable care; that deceased failed to exercise such reasonable care as the circumstances required by failing to keep a proper, or any, look-out^ for tho approach of tho shunt, by failing to listen for and to hoar the approach of the shunt, and by placing himself in such a position that he might he and was crushed between the buffers; that the failure of the deceased was either the solo cause of the accident or an effective and material cause.

In opening tho ease, Mr .Haggitt said that this was an action by way of petition ol right. Dalgcty and Co., like oilier firms, had direct access to the railway line by means of a siding running from the store across Cumberland street on to the railway line, not only for their own convenience but for tho convenience of the Railway Department. Tho authority under which right was allowed to Dalgcty and Co. to have railway access was given by tho Minister of Railways under Act of Parliament. The firm paid £SO a year for the use of the 'and on which the siding existed, and £SO for the use of the siding. As tho jury would bo, told, part of the defence was that the man was a trespasser, that ho had no right to bo at the place where the accident happened. The .suppliant claimed, however, that as rent was paid for the siding, that contention was baseless. The defence further contended Hint the servants of the railwav owed no duty to take steps to ensure the safety of the employees of Dalgcty and Co. That was a question of law. Evidence was called in support of the claim, am! the case was proceeding at tho time of the luncheon adjournment.