ACCIDENT SEQUEL

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22406, 30 April 1936, Page 15

ACCIDENT SEQUEL

CLAIM FOE £I3OO LAUNDRY WORKER'S INJURY PARTIES REACH SETTLEMENT The claim for £I3OO generaldamages arising from injuries received by Monica Ethel Matheson, aged 17 years, while working in a laundry at Devonport on May 23, 1935, was settled by mutual agreement yesterday after part of the case had been heard in the Supreme Court before Mr. .Justice Fair. The action was brought through the girl's father, James Alexander Matheson, theatrical employee (Mr. West), the defendant being W. 1). Meiklejohn (Mr. Richmond), the proprietor of the laundry. The statement of claim set out that plaintiff was assisting in putting a tablecloth through a mangle when her right hand was drawn into it and caught between the roller and the "hot box." Her hand was so badly burned that the greater part had to be amputated. It was alleged that defendant was negligent in that the machinery was not in propor condition and was not fitted with an adequate or efficient guard, and also that he had failed to take proper steps to instruct plaintiff in the use of the machinery. Machinery Inspector's Evidence Plaintiff also claimed £4B 6s special damages, which included her ■wages of 12s 6d a week, calculated from December 12, 1935, to the date of the action. The allegations of negligence were denied by the defence. Llewellyn Wynn Williams, a Government inspector of machinery at Auckland, said the records of his department showed that the last inspection of the machinery in Devonport prior to the accident was on September 21, 1934. If the machine had been in the condition it was in last week when witness inspected it the accident would not have been possible. Cross-examined, witness said his records revealed that the machine had been inspected over a period of about three years. The guard of the machine, if in its correct position, should be adequate. The guard was generally looked upon by an operator as a warning when the machine was in use. Any operator who felt the pressure of the guard on her hand, would, if paying attention, naturally withdraw her hand. To Mr. West witness said that if an operator was told there was no danger it could not be expected that the guard would have the same warning. Extent ol Injury to Hand Dr. E. H. B. Milsom said he attended plaintiff after the accident. Her hand was suffering from the effects of extreme heat and was almost "cooked right through." All fingers and practically the whole of the thumb had to be amputated, but the portion of the thumb left had no real value. The hand must have been caught in the machine against the hot plate for some minutes, probably at least five. No bones were crushed* and there were no abrasions.

In opening the case for the defence, Mr. Richmond said it was maintained that adequate precautions for safety were taken. The machine was a comparatively new one and was generally efficient, and the nature and position of the guard were correct. There had never been an accident before. It was arranged that His Honor should inspect the laundry in the afternoon, but following the luncheon adjournment it was announced that the parties had reached a settlement and that no further sitting of tho Court was necessary.