COMPENSATION AWARDS

Greymouth Evening Star, 17 May 1944, Page 2

COMPENSATION AWARDS

• LYTTELTON DOCK ACCIDENT. CHRISTCHURCH, May 16. . Damages were awarded against the Crown by the jury in connection with : the two claims heard in the Supreme Court resulting from the collapse of some scaffolding on the Marine Department’s dredge “Rubi Seddon,” at Lyttelton dock on September 2, 1943. The mishap resulted in the death of one man, and serious injuries to another. The jury after a retirement of an hour and '45 minutes, awarded to the Public Trustee, as executor of the estate of Charles Rolls (who was killed), the full sum claimed, £2500, as general damages,, or a total of £2524 4/- with special damages. Clinton Courtney Holliss (the injured man), who claimed £l5OO gen- , eral damages, was awarded £9OO and | £l4O/5/6 special damages. Judgment was entered accordingly by Mr. Justice Northcroft, on the motion of ' Mr. T. A. Gresson, who appeared for ■ both suppliants. Mr. W. A. Brown represented the Crown. His Honor, when thanking the jury for their services, excused them from further duty during the present sessions. The hearing occupied two days. it was submitted for the suppliants that the death of Rolls and the injuries received by Holliss were due Ito negligence of the Marine Department, through its servants, by tampering with a forward shore rope I which had supported the scaffolding. Specific negligence, it was asserted, was caused by Captain Cyril Y. Barker, master of the dredge, and a seaman, Arthur Charles Duncan, inasmuch as they had untied, or loosened the rope immediately before the accident; that they had failed to warn either Rolls or Holliss that the rope was no longer fast; and that they had I failed to notify Magnus Smith (Miller’s foreman) that they had interfered with the rope. His Honor, when summing up, said that neither .suppliant was entitled to damages,unless the jury were satisfied that either the captain or Duncan had been negligent. Speculation, inferences, or guessing, he said, could not be sufficient grounds on which to return, a verdict. Both claims had to be established beyond all doubt. He added that, once the jury had been satisfied as to negligence (if indeed that were the case), then they should consider the question of appropriate damages. . The whole case, in his opinion, turned on the shore rope. For some reason or other, it had collapsed, but in precisely what manner neither party had been able to elucidate.