ACTION FOR DAMAGES

Otago Daily Times, Issue 16243, 28 November 1914, Page 5

ACTION FOR DAMAGES

CLAIM FOR £2000. Ihe action for damages, in which Robert Waddingham, miner, of Kaitangata, claimed £2000 from the New Zealand Coal and Oil Company in respect of injuries received by hi in from an accident in the Kaitangata mine on February 11, was continued before his Honor Jlr Justice Sim and a jury of 12 yesterday morning. Mr A. S. Adams and Mr A. C. Hanlon appeared for plaintiff, and Mr John MacGregor and Mr W. C. MacGregor for defendants. Further evidence was given with respent to the accident at the works. William Proctor (undenviewer) said that a chain would not have made the rope safer, but actually more dangerous. There were liable to be flaws in a chain \rhich could not be easily detected, whereas anything wrong with wire could be easily detected. Chains were used for the convenience of the boys taking the rope off the boxes when the boxes were in motion. The chain was easier to get hold of. By means of it the boxes could be unhooked while the rope was in motion. Daniel Wilson (underviewer) said that he was not aware of the breaking strain of the rope used. If the rope had not been so pliable as this one was it would have been advisable to have a chain. He had known hooks to come out with t«he chain as well. Latham 0. Beal (engineer) described the appliance as the best he could conceive of for the purpose. He would sooner hatve that than a spring hook in a coal mine. In 30 years he had never seen a spring hook used. The roads were dirty, and swivel hooks would be just as likely to clog with dirt. The best precaution was for a man to keep on the sheltered side when a jig was working. There was no precaution for a backlash that would not oreate another kind of danger. Dr Champtaloap, Professor of Bacteriology and Public Health, Otago University, said that on the 19th inst. he received from Dr Marshall Macdonald a specimen of blood to be examined for a certain constitutional disease. He examined it the same day, and found evidence of that disease. Dr Marshall Macdonald gave the result of his examination of the plaintiff on the 18th and 19th inst. As far as the injury to the head was concerned there was no trace of it left, except the scar. He was certain that the man's present condition was not due to the injury. Dr S. C. Allen said he examined the plaintiff on his admission to the Hospital after the accident. The skull was fractured, an area about the size of a penny on the right front being depressed. The man made a splendid recovery, and left the institution in three weeks. A man an injury like this and recover without any serious consequences. Witness saw the 'plaintiff again on the 18th inst. Plaintiff was then thinner, and informed witness that he had lost about three-quarters of a stone. He told witness he had suffered from shock or stroke, and that he had headaches and giddiness and was unable to work. Witness tested him, and found that the right side of his face was paralysed. Witness made up his mind that the injury to the head was not the cause of the stroke. Witness saw no physical reason why the plaintiff should not be at work now. 'Ihis closed the case for the defendants. After addresses by counsel, his Honor summed up the evidence for the benefit of the jury. At 6 p.m. the jury retired, and returned to court at 9.40 o.m. with answers to the issues submitted to them as follows :— (1) Were the system of haulage and the appliances in connection therewith in the heading where the plaintiff was at the time of the accident dangerous to the workmen employed in that part of the mine by reason of— (a) The use of open hooks to attach the empty box to the wire-rope or the absence of a chain between the rope and hook or the method of attaching the hook to the rope?— No. (b) The passing of the rope round the posts without being fastened thereto by a wheel or other appliance?— No. (c) The absence of any brakes or method of. controlling the rope?— No. (2) If so, was the injury to the plaintiff caused thereby?— No. (3) Could the said system, if dangerous, have been made safe by the exercise of reasonable care on the part of defendants? —Not necessary to answer. (4) Was the plaintiff guilty of negligence by remaining where he did to wait for his truck?— No. (5) If so, was such negligence the arise of the injury to the plaintiff?— No. (sa) If answers to (2) and (5) are No, was the negligence of Dunn the cause o! the injury?— Yes. (6) What damages, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to?—£soo. The jury added the following recommendation : —That the system of selfactors of the description in use at the time of the accident being dependent upon the human equation requires some safeguards. Judgment was accordingly entered for plaintiff for £500 (less payments, £65 3s 6d), costs according to scale: disbursements and witnesses' expenses to be fixed by the Registrar; second counsel allowed £5 5s for one day; witnesses who gave exclusive evidence on the issues on which plaintiff failed not allowed expenses.