ACTION AGAINST N.Z. SHIPPING COMPANY.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 13180, 13 January 1905, Page 6

ACTION AGAINST N.Z. SHIPPING COMPANY.

pnou Oce Own CoiMEsroNDEX-r.) LONDON, December 2. Tho oaso of Clark, Williams, and Co. versus Gray, Dawes, and Co. and the Now Zealand Shipping Company oame before Mr Justiisc Kekcvvich'on Wednesday. It was an action for indemnity under "Tho Workmen's Compensation Act, 1697." The plaintiffs were ships' carpenters. Tho defendants, the New Zealand .Shipping Company, Wero owners of tho steamship Waimate, then lying in the Albert Docks, and had engaged the plaintiffs to do the carpentering work on tho ship necessary to fit her out as a transport. Tho other defendants, Messrs Cray, Dawes, and Co., wero stevedores, and at the time in question wore engaged by their servants or agents in loading the ship. Joseph Seagrott, a carpenter in tho employ of Iho plaintiffs; while engaged l in 'working upon the ship, fell down an open and unprotected hatchway and was seriously injured.

Seagrott was engaged in fitting up certain horse-boxes on the " 'tween "-deck, and when he knocked off work for the day- lie left- his tools on tho ship in a horsc-box close to -a hatchway- which was then open. Tho stevedores engaged in tho loading did not leave off work till some time later in the day. Next morning at 7 o'clock he returned lo work, and was ordered by the plaintiffs' foreman to do some work on the spar deck. Accordingly ho went down to fetch his tools. At this time two o-f the hatchways were closed, with the result that tho " 'tween" dcck was more or less 'darkened. The third hatchway was open, and an extra ladder for the use of the workmen was affixed thereto. Seagrott went down tho lauder, and while walking along tho " 'tween" deck to get, his tools ho caught his foot on the combing of hatchway No. 2 and fell down the hatchway. Tho plaintiffs alleged that 'tho defendants were negligent, first, in allowing hatchway No. 2 on tho "'tween" ,deek to remain uncovered apd unprotected, and, secondly, in covering the hatchway on tho spar dock without covering or protecting the hatuliway on tho "'tween" deck so as to lead persons using the ship to believe that both hatchways wore covcred. • Seaerott obtained from the judge of the .Bow County Court, a certificate under the Workmen's Compensation Act whereby the plaintiffs were ordered to pay him a weekly sum of I9s lid until further order as compensation for his injuries, and also a further stun for costs. The plaintiffs claimed to be indemnified bv tho. defendants against this liability. Mr Justice Kekewioh sakl that, in order to obtain a judgment, against either of tho defendants tho plaintiffs must establish a duty on the part of that defendant toward their servant Seagrott, and negligence as regards that duty. At the outset l.he plaintiffs had to nu-flt a serious difficulty, bec.m=e they claimed jvulgme.iit against bo'li tlio defendants. It was difficult to say that there could be one and tho same duty imposed on t'.vo independent parties, to be' performed by both of them at one and tho samo time. He. was not prepared to say that tliero could not lx> two slfcli coexistent duties, but. it. would require a good deal of argument to convince him of that. On the evidence, tliero was no possible claim against the New Zealand Shipping Company. The evidence showed that if tliero was any duty on either of the defendant-, that duty lay on Me«sr* dray, Dawe.s, and Co.. to whom had been entrusted the loading of the ship. Although an oflicer of the New Zealand Shipping Company might., if it -had been ilxmghf. fit. liave taken »iV;O precautions for the protection of those on board, tho Shipping Company were not in the occupancy of l.lio ship at the time wdieu the accident oocurrcd, and there wa3 no case against them. As regarded tli-e stevedores, it was ncccwry to prove, that, the danger was one against which if was usual lo providf, otherwise there was no duty to provide against il. II; was said that it was tho duty of these defendants to close- not only the upper hatchways, but the lower hatchways; but there was no evidence of any duty to close the upper hatchways a3 regarded Snaerot-t. There might lie a duty as regarded the Shipping Company in order to provide nstninst tho weather or- against thieves. But there was no evidence lo show that the upper hatchways were closed for the benefit of tho workman on tho slrip, and certainly none to show that if the upper hatchways were olo?cd the lower hatchways ought lo lie closed, or that there was any duty to close the lower hatchways. Seairott. though pressed by counsel to doso, coidd not say thai he inferred from tlio closing of tho upper hatchways that the lower ones were closed for the protection of the ship, and there was no duty to close the hatchways for any other purpose. Then it was said tliati there was a duty, to protect tlio hatchways- by stanchions and chains or by running, a roper- or chain round the pillars which supported tho upner deck, continued the learned judge; but there was no evidence of any such duty, avid it mifiit product) considerable inconvenfence whilo the'loading was going on. There was evidence that this was occasionally done where there was a crew sleeping below, or where cattle were on board; but the eyideneo showed that this'was not a usual precaution, and not being usual, it was impossible to soy that, there was any duty to protect, the hatchways in this way. That really disposed of the case; but two further points were argued. It was said by counsel for. the- defendants that, in order to enable Seagrott to establish bis case against Messrs Gray. Dawes, and Co., it must be proved that he was an invitee—in other words, that be was asked or ordered by.them to go' down below and court the danger, and thatmerely being allowed to do so was .not sufficient. Unon the evidence Seagrott was an invitee. Then the question of contributory negliircnce was raised. There was some conflict of evidence as lo the amount of light down below, but apparently the light was very .bad. Seagrott. had to feel his way along, as he said. He knew that batchwav No. 2 was open on the dar before, and, notwithstanding that,, instead of getting a light, he preferred to grope'his way in the dar'.-., Tn thcee circumsta.ijces, Air Justice Kekcwich thought, he had brought on tlio accident by h's own negligence, and there would no judgment for both defendants, with costs..

Tho, streets of ,Port -Arthur' would not at present seem, to be a very suitable place for instruction in the art of- bieycleridirm. and yet a war correspondent reports that* he saw ah officer teaching some women to learn to ride, while bombs were-bursting overhead, ' -'