QUARRY WORKER’S DEATH

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21362, 16 June 1931, Page 2

QUARRY WORKER’S DEATH

ALLEGED DELAY AT HOSPITAL EVIDENCE AT INQUEST. That considerable delay had occurred in making an X-ray examination of a patient who had been admitted to the Duntdin Hospital suffering from injuries received in a quarry accident was alleged during the hearing of evidence at an inquest at the courthouse yesterday morning regarding the death of Albert Hamilton, who died at the Dunedin Hospital on May 30 as the result of injuries received when he fell from a stage at U. and W. Shiel’s quarry at Green Island 911 May 18. After hearing all the evidence the coroner (Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M.) held that no undue delay occurred, and that the deceased’s condition had in no way been affected on account of the time he had been compelled to wait. The case for the police wa6 conducted by Sergeant Vaughan. Messrs C. and W Shiel, Ltd., were represented by Mr J. P. Ward, and Mr C. L. Calvert appeared for the relatives of the deceased. Dr D’Ath said he had made a post mortem examination, as the result of which he was of opinion that deceased had died from multiple septic emboli in the kidneys, spleen, and brain, the septic emboli having arisen from an abscess surrounding four fractured ribs on the right side. The fractured ribs had not punctured the lungs, which was the usual cause of an abscess. Ir a general way any _ injured area was more liable to infection and pus formation than healthy tissue. The fracture of the ribs would predispose the formation of pus in that region, and the spread of septic material from the collection of pus to other organs throughout the body determined the man’s death.

Grattan Charles Shiel, manager for C. and W. Shiel, Ltd., Green Island, said that the company carried on a sand pit at Fairfield. The deceased was employed as a carter, taking the sand away from fhe quarry in a motor lorry. The custom was for the trucks to be hauled out of the quarry by an electric winch. They dere hauled on to a stage lift 3in above the ground on one side and 10ft Sin on the other, and the gauge of the rails was 32iu. At the time of the accident there would be a little over two feet on each side of the rails. Under the truck between the rails there was an open space through which the sand dropped into the lorry below. There wore two men and the contractor (Cecil Guyton) working in the pit. The contractor received so much a yard for quarrying the sand and delivering it to the motor truck from a railway truck. Guyton had full control, and was a good, reliable man to be in charge. The incline from the pit was one in three until it flattened out to the level of the loading stage, and the winchman could not see into the pit. There was generally a man at the top of the incline to see that everything was clear. About 3.15 p.m, on the date in question Guyton came and told witness there had been an accident, and he found the deceased on the ground, being held in a sitting position by two other men. Up till the time of the accident the chain had been in good working order. The deceased was removed to the Hospital without delay.

To Mr Calvert: Witness found out after wards that a link of the chain used on the door of the truck had been broken. Since the accident the loading stage had been widened by the addition of two more planks. A handrail was put up after the accident to obviate the risk of anyone else falling over. It remained up for about two weeks when the conclusion was arrived at that it provided more danger than the stage without a hand rail, the bridge then being widened instead of making use of a handrail. To the coroner; Witness would not say there was any necessity for the deceased to be on the loading stage. lo Mr Calvert: The deceased was em ployed solely by the company. Guyton w r as contracting for the company, and supplied the labour, the company supplying the material. It was witness's duty to see that the equipment was in order.

To Mr t Ward: When the pit was first opened six or seven weeks before the accident witness had personally worked the truck. Witness said he considered that 25 inches on each side of the railway line provided ample room on which a mao could walk.

To Mr Calvert: That space provided sufficient room for? a man to operate the closing of the door of the truck. If the chain did break a man would not lose his balance, as it had to be pulled straight up. Cecil Carlton Guyton, a contractor, re siding at Abbotsford, said that on May 18 at 3 p.m. he employed taking sand from the pit at Shiel’s quarry ai Green Island. The trucks by which the sand was conveyed were brought up to a stage by means of a winch, each truck holding two yards. The bridge at that time had a width of approximately nine feet, but was now about lift 6in wide. The gauge of the rails was 32 inches, and the width of the truck 35 inches. At the time of the accident the deceased was employed in filling a lorry. In answer to a question, witness stated that two men were not required to close the door of the truck, but if an extra man were there he assisted in the operation. At the time of the accident a man had not come up from the sand pit, as was often the case, and Hamilton attempted to close the door without assistance. The deceased took a grip of the chain by which the door was closed, and, standing with his back to the bridge, attempted to close the door. He had too long a hold of the chain, however, and he was unable to close the door, so he jerked the chain half a dozen times. From where he was standing witness could see that Hamilton was not succeeding in closing the door, and he called out to the deceased to hold on. Hamilton was then swinging out from the bridge half suspended by the chain, and he jerked it two more times. The chain snapped, and the deceased fell backwards to the ground, a distance of approximately 11 feet. A motor lorry was standing beneath the stage at the time, and the deceased’s hips struck the truck as he fell. Witness went down to him. and lie was then unconscious with a slight gash on the back of his head. Witness immediately reported the accident to Grattan Shi el. On his return he found that Hamilton had regained consciousness. The injured man was placed in a motor •car and taken to the Public Hospital. In answer to a question, witness said that he had been working the trucks for about two months before the time of the accident. This was a new pit. Prior to this he had not worked in a sand pit in Dunedin, but had done so in the North Island. Witness considered that the door chain, the sand trucks, and the bridge were all quite safe up till the time the accident occurred. He saw the broken link after the accident, and, although it was not much worn, the metal in the centre was rotten, but no flaw was visible on the outside. It would not require a thick chain to draw the door up. To Mr Calvert: The weight of the door would be about 45 or 501 b. Certain classes of sand stuck to it, thereby increasing its weight, but this would not prevent tlje closing of the door. It was usual for two men to push the truck off the bridge, although one man could do it. Hamilton generally worked on the road while the lorry was being loaded, and this was the only occasion upon which he had helped on the bridge. Witness considered that at the time of the accident there * was plenty of room to work the door safely, and he was much against any widening of the bridge. A railing round the bridge would, in his opinion, have made the bridge more unsafe. The accident would have happened even if the railing had been there. To Mr Ward; He considered that the accident was caused by undue pressure on the chain, causing it to break. The chain, he thought was perfectly safe, and was still being used. The deceased would have fallen even if the platform had been wider. Robert O'Connell Shicl, residing at St. Glair, said he was employed at Shiel s quarry. On the day of the accident ho brought the deceased to the Hospital, arriving there about 3.30 p.m. The injured man was then quite conscious, and the only thing he had complained about was a pain in his side. Witness suggested that Hamilton should he examined by X-ray, and some delay occurred before this was done. As far as he could remember the doctor who had first attended the case came in some time later to sec if the X-ray had been taken, and when lie found that this had not been done he went away again. They were compelled to wait about for another 15 minutes before the X-ray examination was conducted. During this time the deceased, who had been covered with a blanket when he was first admitted, had complained about the cold.

and was shivering. The doctor who took j the X-ray film then produced another ; blanket for the injured man, who was finally put to bed. Witness left the Hospital about 5.5 p.m. Dr Strang, a resident surgical officer at the Dunedin Hospital, said it was the custom in cases of injury to X-ray patients on their way to the ward, provided that their condition was not serious.. He himself did not see the patient until he was admitted to the ward, but from his ' examination of Hamilton then witness could state that he was in no way in an unsuitable state to be X-rayed. There was some clement of doubt about the nature of the injury to Hamilton’s back, and for that reason he had been X-rayed as early as possible. To Sergeant Vaughan: The injured man had been placed in the ward about 5.10 p.m. Patients were not left without blankets when waiting to be X-rayed, and he understood that the deceased had had one blanket, which he thought was quite sufficient.

To the coroner: There might have been some little delay, but although the X-ray machine was not actually in use at the time, the people in that department were busy developing a film. He considered that any delay,which bad occurred had in no way affected the patient’s condition. To Mr Ward: It had taken about five or 10 minutes to X-ray Hamilton. He did not think that the latter was kept waiting for one hour and 20 minutes, as had been stated. The entry in the admission book showed that the deceased had been admitted to the Hospital at 4 p.m. The coroner said that in so far as the accident was concerned the evidence of Guyton showed clearly what had happened. It had been shown that the method of work was reasonably safe, and the accident had been caused by the faulty manner in which the deceased had worked the chain in an attempt to close the bottom of the truck. The deceased had throwm his full weight on the chain, and a link had snapped, thereby causing him to fall to the ground. Regarding the question whether the deceased had received prompt and proper attention at the Hospital, after hearing the evidence, he could not see that there had been any delay or fault on the part of the Hospital staff. Shiel’s evidence had gone to show that there had been a delay of half an hour in conducting the X-ray examination, but Dr Strang’s evidence had accounted for this, and any delay had not affected Hamilton’s condition. A verdict was returned that_ death was due to multiple septic emboli in the kidneys, spleen, and brain, the septic emboh having arisen from an abscess surrounding four fractured ribs on the right side.