SUPREME COURT

Grey River Argus, 22 June 1920, Page 4

SUPREME COURT

REEFTON CRANE ACCIDENT CLAIM FAILS. The petition of rigßf, Elisha Samuel Loekington v. tho Crown, concluded at Hokitika yesterday after a trial lasting the greater part of two days. The jury after a four hours ' retirement, found .that there had been negligence on the part • of the Railway Department in failing to properly secure the casing, and also on the part of suppliant's uncle, George Loekington, in failing to remove the crane handle before lowerhig~tiie~ioad. Further, • the jury found that the latter 's carelessness was the effective cause of the accident, and accordingly that the claim for damages failed. Issues were put to the jury as follow: — • I—Was1 — Was the suppliant at tho time the accictent happened actually engaged as a servant of the Reefton Sawmills, Ltd., in performing work for . and on behal?"or fhe Reefton Sawmills, Ltd.? • ' ■ Answei^^es". 2 — Did the suppliant, when he undertook to. work near the crane know of and appreciate fully v the risk that he ' was taking, and did he agree to fake such risk himself 1 Answer — No. 3 — Was it the custom of the RailwayDepartment to make a charge for the use of the crane? ; Answer — Yes. 4 — Did the handle break and so cause injury to the suppliant by reason of some defect which the officers of the Crown coulu not "have discovered by the- exercise' of reasonable care? Answer — Yes. s—Were5 — Were the officers of the Railway Department guilty of negligence in allowing the crane to be used when it was in a defective and dangerous condition, the gear casing "being so much out of place that the crane handle struck the casing and broke, thereby causing injury to the suppliant? Answer — Yes. G — Was the injury to the suppliant caused by tfce" negligence of the suppliant's uncle, in that when lowering a loafl he failed to remove the crane handle? Answer — Yes. 7 — lf tEe officers of the Railway Department were guilty of negligence and the suppliant's uncle was also guilty of negligence, were they equally to blame for the injury sustained by tho suppliant? AnsweT — No. B—lf8 — If the answer to issue No. 7 is "No," then:— (a) Was the negligence of the officers of the railway department the direct cause of the injury sustained by suppliant? AnsweT — No. (b) Was the negligence of the suppliant's uncle the direct cause of the injury sustained by the suppliant? Answer — Yes. 9_"What damages" (if any.) is the suppliant entitled to? No answer. The jury added a recommendation: «That the jury add that the Department be advised to put up notices at each crane respecting the danger of working same, and full instructions how-fo work the crane be also erected." Mr Park askecTlor judgment to be entered up in favour of the Department. ' His HonouT entered tip judgment for defendants witn" costs on tho .highest scale, witnesses' allowances and disbursements to be allowed by rcgi«trar. ** " Mr O 'Regan asked for leave to move' for a new trial. His Honour granted reserve leave •to move for fiTnew trial, for fourteen days. His Honour thanked the juTy tor their atteritt-o-nV and for thrir recommendation, which would bo duly forwarded on to the Railway Department. Theyvere then discharged from further attendance.