PHOSPHORUS POISONING.

Otago Witness, Issue 3714, 19 May 1925, Page 28

PHOSPHORUS POISONING.

CLAIM AGAINST THE CROWN. SOME INTERESTING EVIDENCE. Before his Honor Mr Justice Sim in the Supreme Court on Thursday Michael Cahill claimed from the King the sum of £1099 8s as damages suffered from injuries received from phosphorus fumes while engaged as a rabbit poisoner by the Government Department of Agriculture. Mr J. C. Parcell appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr F. B. Adams, With him Mr P. S. Anderson, for the defendant. Mr Parcell said the case arose through the employment of Cahill by the Department of Agriculture in laying phosphorised pollard for the destruction of rabbits. He had become ill as the result of being poisoned by phosphorus, and had been ill ever since. The plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous nature of the work, and had not been warned by the stock inspector who engaged him or he would not have undertaken it. He was daily expecting to get better, and this accounted for the delay which had taken nlaoe in bringing the proceedings. Counsel submitted that the duty devolved on the Crown of warning plaintiff of the dangerous nature of the work he was engaged 10 perform. The plaintiff would prove that phosphorised pollard was a dangerous chattel, and there was consequently a duty on the part of the employer to warn plaintiff. That being so, the plaintiff was entitled to compensation. Michael Cahill (plaintiff) said that he was a labourer residing at Tapanui.. He was employed by Mr Barron, stock inspector. Mr Barron asked witness if he would take on a job of laying phosphorus poison on the railway line. He was to oe paid 12s per day, the department, to provide the phosphorus. He received no warning as to the dangerous ngiure of the work. He did not think there was any danger, or he would not have undertaken the work. He spread the phosphorised pollard as he got it from tho garage at Tapanui. He understood the poison was made up in Invercargill. He noticed that die poison was very strong, and it started to smoke when exposed to the air. He began tho work some time in September, J9Z3. He first became ill in February. He went to Dr Robertson, and improved A little under his treatment. He resumed work, but had to give in again. He was told that it was his stomach which was out of order. He was ordered to remain in bed. Dr Robertson stating that he was suffering from phosphorus poisoning. He Was violently sick at times. The first flvmptonis of illness were noticeable on Febxvary 15. He had not felt any indications of illness on February 13 or 14. He notified Mr Barron that he was suffering from phosphorus poisoning. Mr Barron laid ho had heard of men losing their jaw popes, but he had not heard of anyone being affected internally as the result of phoephorus. Witness aaked Dr Robertson jf he would allow him to go to Dunedin. The doctor gave his consent, and he confllilted Dr Huntttr. Dr Hunter examined him, and ho reoommended him to go into ft private hospital. He told him he could not afford 10 guineas a week for treat Dent in a private hospital.. Dr Hunter mm recommended that he should return

to Tapanui and go into the public hospital there. He returned to Dunedin some time later to be operated on for goitre. He improved for a time, and then went back as far as his general heajth was concerned. He had done a little light work since, such as setting rabbit traps. He had had a slight operation for stomach trouble about five years and a-half ago. He was back at his work about three months after the operation. The poisoning from which he suffered in no way resembled the stomach trouble from which he previously had suffered. When handling the phosphorus he took every possible precaution. He made every effort to keep his hands clean. He would not have accepted the empoyment had he known that he was running any risk. He could not do hard work yet. He was married and had seven of a family. IJe had to rely on labouring work for his living. To Mr Adams: lie was mining for about 30 years. Prior to that he was brought up on a farm at Tuapeka West. There were only a few rabbits there and they were destroyed by trapping. He was at Island Block mining for 27 years. He had done about five months’ mining work since he had had the operation for stomach trouble. He had been at Evan’s Flat dairying for six months or more. When he went to about two years ago ho, in partnership with two of his sons, took up a small run of about 800 acres, which they only held for about five weeks. He did not do any poisoning on that property. At the time he gave up mining his health was quite good. He knew that one of the effects of the operation on his stomach was to make a permanent change in the working of that organ. He did not know that it was a severe operation lie used to do a good deal of boxing in his younger days, and was hit violently in the region of the stomach on several occasions. He had performed feats ol strength, and was not afraid of a man two stone heavier. lie was 58 years of age. and was 12 stone 41b in weight before he was affected by the poison. It was some time after he had the operation on the stomach that Dr Batchelor told him he had goitre, but it was not serious. He was still suffering from the effects of the poison. He became very fatigued and was unable to do any work. Sometimes ho was all right for three or four weeks and then he had lapses of pain in his sides. His heart did not trouble him to any extent. He had not been told that he had a weak heart.. He had had his heart examined when he had the operation on his stomach. He knew that phosphorised pollard poisoning fvas quite a common means of destroying rabbits. He had heard of men being injured by phosphorus fumes, lie did not know of this prior to his undertaking the work. He did not tell the doctor who examined him that ho had had 20 years’ experience of pollard poisoning, neither did he tell them that he had himself mixed the material. Witness described at some length the symptoms of his trouble. The complaint he made about Mr Barron was that he did not tell him of the dangerous nature of the poison. He thought it was Mr Barron’s duty to tell him of the dangerous nature of the work of handling poison. He knew of no other precautions n man could take. He remembered seeing the word “poison” on the tins which contained the pollard. Dr Irwin Hunter said he examined the plaintiff on May 16, 1924. The man looked ill, and he had tenderness over the abdo-

men, and he had a small goitre on the left side. He had some tremor, a rapid heart, and a heart murmur all over his chest. Plaintiff said he had been spreading poison about 10 weeks before, that he was quite well until he had his tea on February 15, that he was subsequently ill Witness advised him to go into hospital. He did not think his symptoms were due to a recurrence of the stomach trouble. If that had been so he thought his condition would have become worse. Plaintiff was not fit to work. If due precautions were taken phasphorised pollard was quite safe to handle. He did not think that a medical man examining plaintiff 12 months after the poisoning could state definitely that he was suffering from phosphorus poisoning. To Mr Adams: Plaintiff’s weight was now under 10 stone. He had gained 41b since he last saw him. The condition of plaintiff’s heart might be due to any number of things. He did not suggest that the poison gave him the heart symptoms, but still it might give him those symptoms indirectly. It was possible that the poisoning may have started the goitre. On the other hand his symptom* might have been the result of neurasthenia. Phosphorous poisoning was distinctly rare in human beings. He had never heard of a rabbiter contracting the trouble. He could not account for his contracting the disease. He might have contracted the poisoning through his food. He would say that plaintiff was suffering from acute phosphorus poisoning. Dr William Robertson said he was a medical practitioner residing at Tapanui. Plaintiff came to consult him with regard to slight stomach trouble. He thought he was suffering from indigestion, and proscribed accordingly. He saw him again on the night of February 15, 1924, at his house. He was suffering from abdominal pains, and was inclined to vomit. He gave him something to relieve the pain. He saw him again on the morning of February 16, when he was very much worse. He then complained of violent pains. He looked really ill, had a slow pulse, and a low temperature. He did not know that the man had been laying poison, but thought he was a labouring man. He thought he was suffering from an irritant poisoning, and as the result of investigation he discovered that he'had been laying pollard poison. The man became seriously ill, and witness found later -rfhat h» was jaundiced. Witness did not consider that plaintiff’s illness was due to a rocif..*rence of previous stomach trouble. His pulse was not consistent with toxic goitre. Witness considered now that his illness was due to phosphorus poisoning. Cahill should not have takon the risk of working with poison. He thought it might be advisable to wear a mask when mixing the poison. The washing of hands waa not etfectivo ns phosphorus was not soluble in water. He thought those laying poison should wear rubber gloves. If r the course of his practice he had come across a numl»er of men who wore affocted by phosphorus fumes. Ho had fortunately got these in the early stages, and no bad results followed. Cahill’s case was the worst he had come across. The poison was yellow phosphorus, a vety deadly form. It was tho poison which ftffeoted match girls at Home so inluripushft The poison had affected him so badly t/'at he was still suffering. He eould not say how long he would he before he returned to normal health.

VERDICT FOR RESPONDENT. The case was concluded on Friday before his Honor Mr Justice Siin in the Supreme Court. Mr J. C. Parcell appeared for the plaintiff and Mr F. B. Adams, with him Mr p. S. Anderson, for the defence. Dr Robertson again entered the witness box, ami was cross-examined by Mr Adams. On bis first examination of plaintiff witness said he did not diagnose phos* pliorus poisoning. It was not until jaundice symptoms appeared that he suspected phosphorus poisonkig. He considered that Cahill was suffering from a combination of gastritis and enteritic. Those conditions may have existed without the introduction of phosphorus poisoning. He would probably have suspected phosphorus poisoning from the subnormal pulse. Once he knew that the man was suffering from phosphorus poisoning he found many indications of this trouble. Luminosity and smell of phosphorus were decisive symptoms of phosphorus poisoning. The man had a slight cough, and complained of a difficulty in breathing. The missing of a heart beat was consistent with toxic goitre. One of the aftereffects of phosphorus poisoning was fatty degeneration of the heart, and possibly the liver. He thought the plaintiff was as much affected by the fumes as by the consumption of particles of phosphorus. If he swallowed particles of phosphorus he might not be ill till some hours later. Cahill’s case was unique as regards its severity. An unhealthy stomach would predispose one to Irritant poisoning, and Cahill would feel the effects of phosphorus poisoning much more readily than a healthier man. Re-examined by Mr Parcell: It was u fact that bisulphide did not dissolve phosphorus it merely divided the particles. Mr Adams, In opening the case for the Crown, contended that the claim was an afterthought. There had been a claim under the Workers’ Compensation. His Honor: Does the Crown dispute liability under the Workers’ Compensation Act? Mr Adams said the Crown had intended to do so up to the time when the claim was charged lo one for damages. The statutory time had now passed in which Cahill could make a claim under the Workers’ Compensation Act. Dealing with the claim for damages, counsel said the phosphorised pollard was a well-known poison, and had beer used for many years. He hoped to satify the court that there was no reason to expect phosphorus poisoning to arise from the laying of poison in the open air, though there was a grave danger in mixing the poison. Plaintiff had to satisfy the court that there was a danger sufficiently known to the employer to impose upon him the duty of informing plaintiff of it. Dr F. S. Batchelor said he knew plaintiff, who had consulted him professionally in 1920, when he operated on him for a perforated ulcer of the stomach. The patient recovered fairly well from the operation. There was likely to be trouble in the future with such a stomach. He again saw plaintiff in December, 1921. He then weighed 9.12, and complained of indigestion. In January, 1922, in April, 1922, and again in Tune, 1921, he saw him. On the last occasion Cahill said he was suffering from phosphorus poisoning. He weighed 9.0. Witness advised an operation for goitre. Plaintiff went to Prospect House on June 27, 1924, and he operated on him on July 24. To Mr Parcell: He had very little experience of phophorus poisoning. Dr D. W. Carmalt Jones, Professor oi Systematic Medicine at Otago University, said he was also in private practice. Cahill was admitted to witness’s ward at the Dunedin Hopital in August, 1921. He was discharged in about eight days. He next saw plaintiff on December 10, 1924, when he examined him at counsel’s request, with a view to giving evidence in this case. He understood plaintiff to say that he had laid pollard poison on many previous occasions. On the face of it it was very improbable that plaintiff was suffering from pollard poisoning. Witness described the method of manufacture of phosphorised pollard. He thought the amount of poison which Cahill would come into contact with would be very small. All the authorities agreed that chronic industrial poisoning was a matter of fumes, and the amount erf poisoning varied inversely with the amount of ventilation. This patient had only used it out-of-doors. Acute poisoning generally meant the swallowing of poison, and a gram and a-half was a fatal dose He thought one whole pellet would be required for a fatal dose, and a considerable portion of that would be necessary to produce acute poisoning. He did not know that plaintiff swallowed phosphorus. Those were his reasons for concluding that plaintiff was not suffering from phosphorus poisoning. To Mr Parcell: He had not had any personal experience of phosphorus poisoning. He oould not account for Cahill’s slow pulse. He would not attribute the vomiting or internal pains to toxic goitre. He could not account for the jaundice mentioned by Dr Robertson. He agreed with Dr Robertson that jaundice was a symptom of phosphorus poisoning. Ho presumed that was ono of Dr Robertson’s reasons for diagnosing the case as ne of phophorus poisoning. , ... Re-examined by Mr Adams: If Cahill had washed his hands he did not think he could have consumed sufficient to have caused acute phosphorus poisoning. Cahill’s case, if one of phosphorus poisoning, was certainly unique. Dr J. H. Crawshaw-, Medical Officer ol Health at Christchurch, and formerly of Dunedin, said that when he questioned Cahill he said he had handled phosphorised pollard for the past 20 years. He also said that he had himself mixed the poison. Mr Adams: Were the symptoms of February 15 lust consistent with phosphorised poisoning? Dr Crawshaw: It was very problematic that ho was suffering from that form of poisoning lie may have been suffering from food poisoning. He would have looked for the decomposition of food, which may have caused what is called ptomaine poisoning. To Mr Parcell: He did not think it was possiblo to diagnose phosphorus poisoning if “Pliosey” juw were not present. He could not see how phosphorus poisoning could bo detected otherwise. David Samuel Angus Weir said lie was a stock inspector stationed at Ranfurly, and was in charge of the manufacture of phosphorised pollard poison at that centre. The mixture consisted of one part phosphorus, 18 parts aiisrar. 60 parts pollard, and 30 part* water. This gave. 109 parte, the extra being to allow for evaporation. That was the standard mixture, and he under-

stood it had not varied for a matter of 20 or 30 years. During the past 20 years he had had a good deal of experience in the laying of phosphorised pollard and had never known or heard of a case similar to Cahill’s. Stock-inspect or Barron, stationed at Tapanui, detailed the conversation he had with plaintiff w’hieh led up to his being engaged to lay pollard poison for the department. Plaintiff said he had had previous experience in laying pollard poison. Cahill told him that he and his son had poisoned a block of land on Beaumont Station, adjacent to Island Block. He knew of no recognised danger in laying pollard poison. To Mr Parcell: His reason for asking plaintiff if he was accustomed to laying poison was that ho was not going to engage a man who did not understand the nature of the work he was required to do. Cahill carried out his duties in a workmanlike manner, and he had no fault to find with him. He did not on any occasion tell Cahill to be careful how he handled the poison. Neither did he tell him it waa dangerous stuff to handle. After a quantity of further evidence had been called for the defence, his Honor asked if Mr Parcell had made out any breach of duty. Mr Parcell said his point was that the Crowm should have told his client of the dangerous chattel he was employed to handle. His Honor: Well, he ought to have known. Mr Parcell: If Cahill had known there was any danger at all he would not have taken the employment. His Honor: I cannot see that there waa any unusual circumstance. I cannot see that Cahill’s illness was due to phosphorus poisoning, and I fail to see how a man working ; n the open air could have been affected by the fumes of phosphorus. It seems quite incredible. Mr Parcell: Does your Honor hold that it was not a dangerous chattel which plaint iff* was handling? Fis Honor: Plaintiff knew all about it. After some further argument his Honor said he would have to give judgment for the respondent, with costs according to scale, to be taxed bv the registrar.