QUARRY INJURY

Southland Times, Issue 25306, 8 June 1935, Page 9

QUARRY INJURY

DAMAGES SOUGHT VERDICT FOR DEFENDANT I' . ' ''ln the Bluff Magistrate’s Court yesterday before Mr W. H. Freeman, S.M., a claim for damages was brought by Charles Thomas Roe, labourer, of Blutt (Mr G. Cruickshank), against the Fletcher Construction Company, Ltd. (Mr H. J. Macalister), the sum involved being £73 15/8, made up as follows: Loss of wages, £44 15/8; medical expenses £9; general damages, £2O. The statement of claim set out that when working in the defendant’s quarry on September 3, 1934, plaintiff was injured through the negligence of the defendant, or its duly authorized agent, in the management of the quarry, m failing to clear the overburden of the “tops” of the quarry as required by clause two of the regulations under the Stone Quarries Act, 1910, and in failing to observe clause 51 and 52 of the regulations. As the result of the accident plaintiff was totally incapacitated from work for 22 weeks and lost wages amounting to £B2 10/-, of which sum he had received from the defendant £37 14/4. Mr Cruickshank said that the claim was one for damages resulting to plaintiff while working in plaintiff’s quarry, it being alleged that there was negligence on the part of the defendant in respect of the regulations relating to quarries. The object of the regulations was to ensure the safety of workmen and a breach of the regulations would, he submitted, be a ground on which the defendant could recover. He would submit that the breach, even without the proof of negligence, would entitle the plaintiff to recover; but he would hope to show that there was also negligence. The facts were comparatively simple. The plaintiff was working on a ledge near the top of the quarry. On the opposite side was a workman using a drill to which a hose was attached. When the hose was moved the rock which injured plaintiff was dislodged. Plaintiff gave evidence regarding the circumstances connected with his injuries, the extent of which he detailed. He had been prevented from working from September 3 to February 8. The stone which struck him on the foot was one which he considered had been dislodged by blasting operations. To Mr Macalister: It was after the quarry manager declined to take him on for light work that he claimed there was negligence. He had given in December a receipt, in full settlement of all claims, for compensation received, but this was on the understanding that he got back to light work. Had there been light work in the quarry he would, and could, have done it. To Mr Cruickshank: The quarry manager had told him that he would not take him back on a light work certificate; it was up to the insurance company to assist him. To the Magistrate: Witness accounted for the accident by assuming that the hose was pulled and dislodged the stone.

Dr. A. R. Ross, medical practitioner, Bluff, gave evidence regarding the injuries to plaintiff’s foot. Witness considered plaintiff was able to resume light work on December 17.

Mr Macalister cross-examined witness at length, contrasting Dr. Pottinger’s report with that of witness. Evidence relating to the accident was given by Ivan Nelson, Frederick Warner, Michael Farrington, Frank Dawson, James Butler and Gilbert Niven. Mr Macalister said he felt justified in moving for a non-suit. The plaintiff’s claim was based alternatively on negligence or breach ji the regulations; and it would be submitted that in I neither respect had pl untiff proved his case. The onus was on the plaintiff to prove negligence in respect to quarry accidents. Plaintiff had not discharged) that onus; therefore the claim should be dismissed.

The Magistrate said he would prefer in the meantime to reserve the nonsuit point.

William Morrison, quarry manager at the time of the accident, said he did not see the accident at the time. It was reported to him. He knew the condition of the tops at the time. He had not inspected them that morning, that being the foreman’s job. He had cleared the tops of the quarry previously, preparatory to firing a shot. Witness was a quarry manager of 23 years’ experience. Falls of rock occurred at times without any negligence. All overburden was raked back from the quarry wall. To Mr. Cruickshank: Witness had on the day in question inspected the tops after each shot had been fired. Stanley Robert Milne, quarry foreman at the time of the accident, said he had inspected the tops on the morning of the accident. They were clear. He produced the book recording the inspections, signed on September 3. The Magistrate, in giving judgment for the defendant, said that plaintiff had proved a breach of neither regulation quoted. There was no evidence how the stone was dislodged. Defendant waived any claim for costs.