TALLY CLERK’S INJURIES

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22903, 10 June 1936, Page 5

TALLY CLERK’S INJURIES

SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGES SOUGHT PLAINTIFFS CLAIM SUCCEEDS The hearing of a case in which Albert Goodwin, a tally clerk, claimed from John Mill and Co., Ltd., the sum of £725 as compensation for an accident which qccured on the wharf at Port Chalmers in February of last year, was concluded yesterday in the Supreme Court before Mr Justice Kennedy and a jury. The plaintiff alleged that it was owing to the company's faulty stowing of a railway truck of wool dumps that one of the dumps fell off the truck and struck him, breaking both his legs. Mr W. D. Taylor appeared for the plaintiff, and the defendant company was represented by Mr J. S. Sinclair and Mr I. B. Stevenson. The case for the defence was concluded shortly after the luncheon adjournment, the remainder of the afternoon being occupied by the addresses of counsel. The jury then retired, and returned after three hours with a verdict for the plaintiff, damages being assessed at £027 7s 7d. Frederick Charles Smith, head storeman for the defendant company, continued his evidence, and in reply to a question by Mr Sinclair, said that the Shaw, Savill Company adopted the same method of loading trucks as his company. He had seen bales fall from the trucks when the covers were being removed, but if the men were careful there was no reason why they should be struck. The only reason he could suggest for the fall of the dump was rough shunting, as no matter how securely dumps were stowed, heavy shunting would shift, them. The two men who had been stowing the dumps into the trucks were probably as experienced as anyone who could bo procured. To Mr Taylor: So far as he could recollect this was the only occasion during the 1934-1935 wool season on which he had been held up by a truck capsizing outside the defendant company’s store. After reading a letter produced by Mr Taylor, which referred to a truck capsizijig in March, 1935, witness admitted that if this' was the mishap he had mentioned in his evidence it had happened some time after the Anglo-Canadian had sailed.

James Sinclair Simpson, superintendent stevedore for Messrs H. L. Tapley and Co., said he had had 27 years’ experience of loading wool, and gave it as his opinion that rough shunting would shift a bale of wool on a truck. He did not think that pulling the covers off trucks could disturb the dumps unless the latter had first been shifted by shunting. It was generally considered dangerous for men to stand alongside trucks while the covers were being taken off, and there was no need for a tally clerk to be near the trucks at this time. Further evidence was tendered by Frederick Ellis, an assistant stevedore in the employ of Messrs Tapley and Co., and by Charles Porter and Alden Stanley Annan, waterside workers employed by the defendant company, who explained the method adopted in loading wool on a truck. Henry Charles Stevens explained how the trucks were covered, and stated definitely that faulty stowage could not have been responsible for the dumps falling, as by climbing on the trucks to cover them he would immediately have noticed if they were not properly loaded. The evidence of George Albert Kenny and Sydney Allen Front, tally clerks, both of whom considered that a tally clerk was taking a risk if he took the tickets from a truck before the covers had been removed, concluded the case for the defence. After counsel had addressed the court, his Honor summed up and submitted the following questions to the jury:—(11 Was the injury to the plaintiff caused by the defendant’s negligence in improperly stowing one or all of the dumps? (2) Was the injury caused by the negligence of the plaintiff in approaching too near a railway truck loaded with bales or dumps of wool while the covers were being removed? (31 If both the plaintiff and the defendant company were guilty of negligence. could the plaintiff, bv exorcise of ordinary care and diligence, have avoided the mischief which happened? The jury retired at 5.10 p.m. and returned at 8.10 with an affirmative reply to question number one on the ground that the defendant’s servants had improperly stowed the bales or dumps in the truck in such a manner as to allow

one of , the bales or dumps forming the top row to move into such a position that when the truck covers were removed such bale or dump fell from the truck. A negative was returned to question number two, and .the third was not answered. Special damages were- assessed at £227 7s 7d and general damages at £4oo—-a total of £627 7s 7d.

Mr Sinclair requested hie ■ Honor to postpone entering up judgment as he had been instructed to move for a new trial on the ground that the verdict was against the weight of evidence. His. Honor,, remarking that the entering of judgment would not in any way preclude Mr Sinclair from moving, entered judgment for the plaintiff for the full amount assessed, with costs according to scale on that amount, witnesses’ expenses, and disbursements to be fixed by the registrar. 1 -V! 1 '