LABOURER’S DEATH

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 8738, 21 May 1914, Page 8

LABOURER’S DEATH

WIDOW CLAIMS £2OOO WAS THE PROPER CARE EXERCISER ? A claim for £’2ooo compensation for the death by accident of her husband was yesterday brought in the Supremo Court by Lucinda Caldwell, widow of Thomas Caldwell, against the Union Steam Ship Companp, owners of the steamer Maitai, upon which vessel the deceased was killed. The ( as© vas heard before His Honour Mr Justice Honking and a jury of twelve. Mr A. Gray, K.C., with him Mr E. J. Fitzgibbon, appeared for the c’aim ant; and Air T. M- Wilford, with All P. Levi, for the defendant company. In opening the case Mr Gray said that the fatality occurred on March 31st last. The Maitai had arrived in the morning from Auckland and Na pier, and proceeded to unload at the Jervois quay wharf. Caldwell was working in the forehold, with seven other men, loading sacks of superphosphates in the slings. About 11 o’clock when a sling of superphosphates was about to be swung out from above the hatch, the rope broke, and the whole load fell on Caldwell, killing him. After the accident the sling was found to be in a condition quite unfit for use. Experts would be called to say that the rope should have been condemned long before. Tbo action was based upon negligence. It would be contended on behalf of the plaintiff that the rope was not fit to be used and that the company showed negligence in allowing it to be used. It was the duty of an employer to take reasonable care and pro vide proper appliances for the use of his workmen, and to maintain them in a proper condition and see that in the carrying on of his operations he did not subject those employed by him to unnecessary risk. In the present case the load put on the sling was reasonable. For some time past there had been a process of speeding-up among the men on the wharf in loading and unloading steamers, and men had little time for anything not entirely connected with their business.

Tho company, continued Mr Gray, would say that this was an inevitable accident and would allege contributory negligence. They said he should have got out of the way. Although that was very nice in theory, it was practically impossible in practice. The men wore busy getting the things slung and the man who got under shelter would probably not be employed very long in unloading a ship if it were observed that he was more careful of his life and limbs than of getting the cargo out quickly. Plaintiff said Caldwell’s death was due to the company not supplying proper rape. It was not properly inspected. It seemed that there was no system of inspection, or it was of the most casual kind. It was the duty of those having charge of appliances to watch them from time to time knowing they were liable to deteriorate.

The plaintiff, in evidence, said deceased had earned from £2 10s to £3 os per week. Since his death witness had done washing by the day when her health permitted it. Edward Bradley, who was working with the deceased at the time of the accident, said when Caldwell went out from under the protection of the combings he (witness) thought the sling was clear of the hatch and he followed him. To Mr Wilford: He knew that it was the duty of every man in tho hatch to stand clear for his own protection. On this particular occasion, before the sling took the load, tbe hatchman called a warning to stand clear. As a result of the warning witness and Caldwell stood under the combing. The usual practice was for a man to look up from a safe position to see if the weight was clear of the opening. It was left to the men to see when it was safe to go out into the hatch. When Caldwell went out witness assumed that he had looked up. Mr Wilford: ‘‘Had he any right to go out until he had looked up?”— “No, no one has such a right.” That is understood ?—Yes. The sling that you first put round the load partly under the combing was not the sling that broke? —No. The first sling did not carry its load well enough ? —No it was not safe to go up. Who made up this particular sling that broke?—Caldwell . and myself. The sling was made up in the square of the hatch. It was known to all the experienced workers that they could discard a rope that was in any way defective. If you and Caldwell had remained under cover as long as you should you would not have been injured?— That is so. If you had obeyed the warning and had not come out till you had looked up. there would have been nobody injured?—No. There was no reason to believe that the rope would break. Do you remember a special incident of warning given by Mr Curry that morning?:—Yes, I remember him calling out to a man who was in the square of the hatch when a sling was going up. He told him to get under cover.

To Mr Gray: The men judged a rope only by its outside appearance. No ropes had been cast aside on the day of the accident. He could not say whether or not the sling which broke had been used earlier in the day.

Victor Batson, who was working in the hold of the Maitai when Caldwell was killed, said it was a general rule to judge by the sound Of the winch when the sling was clear.. George Gray Farland. secretary of the Waterside Workers’ Union (the old body), said he had never seen an inspection of slings made by an officer on a ship. The sling concerned in the action (produced) had pprished. The rope looked as though it had been wet, and then heated and dried. Without making a close examination of it he would be prepared to use the sling for ordinary weights. Having examined it closely he would not be prepared to use it. As far as he knew there was no inspection by anybody in authority of the slings. Hearing of evidence had not concluded when the Court adjourned.