THE TINAKORI FATALITY

New Zealand Times, Volume XLVII, Issue 10847, 12 March 1921, Page 7

THE TINAKORI FATALITY

SUPREME COURT ACTION DECEASED’S RELATIVES XO GET DAMAGES. CROWN’S MOTION DISMISSED. The application by the Crown (Mr P. S. K. Macassey) for a new trial of the action whereby the relatives of the late Albert Olsen (Mr M. F. ILuckie) were awarded . the sum «f I £IOOO damages, was dismissed yesterjday by Sir Robert Stout, Chief JusItice. The deceased was employed as , a telephone linesman by the Post and ! Telegraph Department, and while engaged in the work of erecting a ■ line on the Tinakori hills, between the j wireless station and the city, on Feb- ! ruary 22nd, 1920, a wire which he j was handling- came into contact with : a live wire supported by the same set of poles, and he was electrocuted. The claim for damages was based on the grounds: (1) That the telephone wire and live wire had been wrongly erected on the same poles; (2) that there had been neglect in the failure to have the current cut off: (3) that the live wire was improperly insulated; and (4) that Olsen was not provided with gloves or other such appliances as would have made for his safety. The Crown based its motion otn three § rounds: First, that there was no evience to go to the jury, and that the suppliant ought to be nonsuited; second, that th« death of the suppliant's eon was caused by his own negligence; third, that the amount of dartiages was excessive. The last ground, however, was not insisted on in argument.

“I am of opinion,” said the Chief Justice, after he had reviewed portion of the evidence given at the trial, “that there was ample evidence before the jury to warrant the jury in coming to the conclusion that it was negligent to have kept the currentconnected when workmen were working in the manner they were doing by putting a wire over a live wire, and I am also of opinion that if it had been properly recorded that there could have been a cut-out in St. Mary street, .that very probably the cut-out would have been made. “It is not necessary to point out that a verdict of this character cannot be disturbed as being against the evidence, or against the weight of evidence, unless it is one which a jury, viewing the whole of the evidence reasonably, could not have properly found.

“As to contributory negligence T do not see any evidence of contributory negligence. First, the onlv thing that might have been done would have been to use gloves. Olsen was not informed of the risk he was running, nor of the need of using gloves, and no gloves were provided for him, ‘nor was he aware of the danger of connection with a live wires He broke no rule or regulation; he did what was ordinarily done by linesmen, and he had nothing to do with cutting-out the electric current or doing anything save what he wgs doing under the example and instructions of. his foreman. “The motion must be dismissed.’’