WATERSIDER’S CLAIM

Greymouth Evening Star, 4 June 1938, Page 2

WATERSIDER’S CLAIM

JURY’S AWARD. At the conclusion of a two-day sitting, the jury in the Supreme Court at Greymouth last evening, awarded) £575 general damages; and £lOl 11/8 special damages to Frederick William Woolhouse, waterside worker, of Hokitika, who proceeded against the Eclipse Shipping Company. Ltd., of Auckland, shipowners, claiming £lOOO general damages, and £3BO !•}/- special damages, less compensation paid to date of issue of writ, £2lB 17/4 —£161/5/8. The claim was based on personal injury suffered by plaintiff, by accident, when he was struck, by a. sling of timber which was being loaded into the in.v. Hokitika, at Hokitika, on January 23, 1937, plaintiff being employed by the defendant. company on the loading’ operations. Plaintiff, who was represented by Mr W. Douglas Taylor, alleged negligence on the part of the defendant, company, evidence being published in the “Star” of Thursday and yesterday. The defendant company, represented by Mi- J. W. Hannan", and with, him Mr M. B. James (Hokitika), denied any negligence. As an alternative, if his claim should fail, plaintiff applied to the presiding Judge, Mr Justice Northcroft. to assess worker’isi compensation in respect of the injuries sustained, in accordance with, the provisions ot “The Workers' Compensation Act. 1922.”

After the “Star” went to press yesterday, addresses by counsel were heard. Mr Taylor addressed the jury tor forty minuter, reviewing the evidence at length. He submitted that the cause of the accident was the swinging of the sling of timber, as the result of. it being improperly slung, which constituted negligence. Further, that there was no evidence of contributory negligence. In. his address to the jury, which occupied twenty minutes, Mr Hannan submitted that there was no evidence that defendant was negligent, either by failure to provide proper equipment or sufficient men to do the work, or that there had been negligence in the affixing of the “snotter” or rope round the sling. ISSUES TO JURY. His-i Honor's summing up occupied almost three-quarters; of an hour, he reviewing' the evidence at length. He pointed out that the onus of proof of negligence was on plaintiff and the negligence, in simple language, was just plain carelessness, or a failure to do what was reasonbale. To be wiseafter the event did not. mean that there had been negligence, which meant to be unwise before the event. In the ease before the jury, it was significant that only two of the eight witnesses called were prepared to find fault with the way the work was done, while the fact that three men were struck by the sling showed that they did not. anticipate any danger. He" submitted the following issues to the jury:— ' (1) Was the defendant, negligent? (2) If so. what, was the negligence of defendant?

(3) Was the plaintiff contribntorily negligent? (41 If both parlies were negligent — (a) had either party the least opportunity of avoiding damages l ? —Answer. (b) If so. which party was it that had such last opportunity? 15) What damages has' the plaintiff suffered? (a) Special; (b) General. The jury retired' at. 4.12 p.m. The jury returned at 7.55 p.m.. their absence including an hour for tea, and gave the following verdict on the issues: Was the defendant negligent? Answer: Yes. (2) If so. what, was the negligence of defendant? Answer: In that the stevedore should have used al) available men to better advantage to properly control the heavy end of the large piece, of timber being handled. Also, the sling being affixed too near the forward end. thereby cam-iing too much -weight to be placed on the shore end, thus 1 making the timber too heavy for (wo men to have complete control over same. (3t Was plaintiff contribntorily negligent? Answer: No. Special damages awarded; £lOl/11/8; general damages awarded: £575. The foreman of the jury (Mr N. V. Lovell) explained that the amount of special damages set. out were to be taken as in excess of compensation already paid. His Honor said that the special damages would be subject to adjustment if more compensation, than was shown in the statement of claim had actually been paid. His Honor adjourned the hearing at 8 p.m., until Tuesday morning, for further consideration on the matter raised; by Air Hannan at. the opening of the case for defendant —that there was no evidence to warrant the case going to- the jury.