WHOSE WAS THE BLAME?

NZ Truth, Issue 604, 13 January 1917, Page 6

WHOSE WAS THE BLAME?

When Jill the Worker be Wise? Regulations wfttch Protect Plute's Pockets What a Recent inquest Revealed. (Prom "Truth's" Christchurch -Rep.) At an inquest m Christchurch last week it was shown that the deceased, an experienced electric linesman, met his death as the result of a fall, subsequent tp an electric shock from overhead wires. It was clearly, demonstrated; by the evidence that the deceased man's employers guarded against such accidents by making it compulsory for employees to wear body belts while working on /THE LIVE OVERHEAD WIRES, the object being that if a workman should receive a shock, the belt fastened to hisKbody and to the pole will prevent him from falling to the ground. In the case under discussion, however, it w3ls made -plain that the deceased, who j was an experienced man, did not have a body- belt attached when the accident- happened, otherwise the chances are that he would nave been alive to-day. The Coroner (Mr. H. W. Bishop, S.M.), m commenting on the obligation of employers to see that their instructions were carried out by workmen, said that the present case showed that ' a worker's familiarity with his work sometimes made him lose sight of its danger and the necessity for I every precaution being token against that danger. ,',''. The latter part of the Coroner's.comment was borne but to a certain extent by the employers' consulting engineer, who said that the compulsory use of a body belt was 'his own instruction and he had to the'- best of his ability' insisted on it being ■ parried out, although as an instance of some workmen's dis- ' regard for caution, he said that some men coming m from the city where there was not such a regulation, had refused point blank to wear the belts because they CONSIDER THEM UNPROFES- / SIONAL. The witness had at that , time been, pushed for men, but he let those recalcitrants go as soon as he possibly could. '■.■■■'■ • The Coroner, after commending the witness for his precautions, said there was no blame attachable to anyone, the fatality being one' where the deceased took the risk upon himself . There is no doubt that the Waimairl County Council, the deceased's employer m . the case mentioned, took reasonable precautions to see its instructions carried out and it reflects credit on that body m being one of the very few employers to insist on the use of the body belt. But the fact remains that the deceased disregarded those instructions, notwithstanding the vigilance of his employers. And, when a workman disregards important regulations it rather looks as if he is courting disaster. It stands to reason that printed regulations, m order toj be effective^ require rigid enforcement, with Isomething like /Mf"" <"*-*"» i as a penalty, otherwise they are not worth the paper they are printed upon. There existence, however, is always to the employers' advantage m nullifying: compensation clajms. Over- confidence generally is the cause of workmen disI regarding Tegulations,, but on the other hand it is an anamoly of some trades that an employee cannot do his work [ efficiently - •' ! ; WITHOUT BREAKING PRECAU- !'■..- TIONARY REGULATIONS. The Christchurch Tramways Board, for instance, have probably framed a regulation prohibiting' conductors from crossing from one trailer to another while .the cars are m motion, yet if a conductor is to collect fares as expeditiously as the Board .requires him to do, there is frequently little else for him to do than break that supposed regulation at the Immense risk of breaking his neck. At all events, conductors are frequently to be seen negotiating all sorts of risky gyrations on moving cars, seemingly m order to fulfill their ordinary work. In most trades, anomalies of a similar sort exist and, if an accident occurs, the employers have nearly always | the advantage of being able to point to their printed instructions and disclaim culpability. The inquest at Christchurch should have the effect of awakening workers' m the various trades to insist on the employees' observance of regulations framed to protect them from accident^ irrespective of the effeot which' that observance might have on the interests of their employers. In all cases it is / THE LIFE OF THE WORKER and not that of the employer which is at stake and it should therefore rest with the worker to realise that too much precaution cannot "bo taken where human life is the forfeit. In axU dltion to this phase of the question, the Inquest should have the effect of causing employers other than the Waimalri County Council: to adopt, that body's regulation making the use of life belts compulsory. when employees are working on "live" iOV«M*Mui . wires . It may look unprofessiorfSfl, as some of the city electricians are reported to bavo contended, but it is certainly safer and looks do not count for much whore, human safoty is concerned.