INJURY TO SPINE

New Zealand Herald, Volume 82, Issue 25210, 24 May 1945, Page 7

INJURY TO SPINE

WHARF ACCIDENT £3170 DAMAGES CLAIMED A waterside worker, James Leonard Fernandez, (.Mr Trimmer), who met with an accident while unloading cargo in July, 1943, brought a claim for damages against Leonard and Dingley, Limited (Mr H. P. Richmond), before Mr Justice Oallan and a jury yesterday. At the time of the accident the plaintiff was employed by the American Transport Service in operating a mechanical cargo hoist. It was set out that plaintiff was instructed to assist in unloading and stacking bales of paper at the Central Wharf. While he was hoisting a load of five bales placed in a sling by the defendant's servants the top hale fell upon him and fractured his spine. H< was in plaster for four months. The plaintiff claimed that his earning? for the 12 months before the accident had been £895. Under the Workers Compensation Act the defendant com pany had, been paying him £4 10; weekly. He alleged that the accideni was due to the negligence of defendant': servants in making up the sling, anc that he would in future be at leas' 50 per cent disabled. He claimed specia damages of £670, including £625 to los of wages, and £2500 general dam ages. The defence denied that the plaintif had suffered any injury through tin negligence of its servants and said i had always been ready to pay a lttni] sum in compensation either as agreut upon or as found by the Court. The hearing will be continued today SEVERED FINGERS ENGINEER SEEKS DAMAGES NONSUIT MOTION RESERVED An accident in an engineering shoj in July 1944, was the subject of a clain for damages heard yesterday by Mi Justice Fair and a jury. The plaintif was William Adams, aged 51, foremai engineer (Mr Schramm), who songln £IOOO general damages and £l4] special damages from liis employer. XeM Zealand Hardware and Hinges, Ltd (Mr West.) At the time of the accident plaintif was setting up a forging machine anc had his hand in the interior of it. H< alleged that another employee, L.Green street, who was assisting him, liat negligently operated the clutch peda of the machine, with the result that Ik lost the index finger and part of the middle finger of his right hand. H( claimed that this permanently incapaci tated him from his occupation as ai engineer. He had been earning £8 14; weekly plus overtime. The defence did not admit that tin accident happened as alleged and as sertcd that if it did it was caused b\ the plaintiff's own negligence in work ing before the flywheel had ceased t( revolve or in adjusting the dies with out first engaging to the locking de vice. A motion by Mr West for a nonsui was reserved. After an absence of two and a quarter hours the jury found tha Greenstreet had been guilty of negli gence causing the accident and tha; (lie plaintiff was not guilty of negli gence contributing, materially to tin accident and awarded him £250 gen oral damages. The special damages £l4l, were agreed on. Mr Schramm moved for judgment. Mr West moved for a nonsuit on tin ground that the only reasonable infer enee from the evidence was that tin plaintiff had been guilty of con tributary negligence. He submitted tha for the plaintiff to have operated insidi the machine while the flywheel was stil revolving was a negligent act, and i was negligent also not to have used tin safety catch. His Honor reserved his decision oi the nonsuit motion. MINER'S CLAIM FAILS Reserved judgment in a claim by ; miner, Alfred James Karu, of Paerot (Mr Haigh), for increased compensa tiou from the Martha Goldmining Co (Wailii), Ltd. (Mr More) has been given by Mr Justice O'Pegan. Tin plaintiff was strijpk in the left eye bj a piece of metal on April 13, 1943. A fragment was later removed iron" the eye and several other operations performed at the Auckland Hospital by Mr W. A. Fairclough, before the patient was discharged on April 29, stated the judgment. For 11 weeks he was paid compensation at the rate oi £3 15s a week, during which the defendant Company admitted that plaintiff was totally disabled. Since resuming work plaintiff had earned not less than his pre-accident rate of wages, anc there was no suggestion that his range of employment had been restricted. Mi Fairclough estimated the permanent impairment of vision at 30 per cent. Although an injury might not be within the second schedule, there was jurisdiction to allow some compensation beyond the period of total disablement if the Court were satisfied that the range of employment had been or might be curtailed. His Honor said such n possibility had not been suggested, and so judgment must be for the defendant.