WATERSIDER KILLED

Taranaki Daily News, 14 December 1926, Page 11

WATERSIDER KILLED

WIDOW’S CLAIM REJECTED . CASE GOES TO APPEAL COURT. COMPENSATION NOT ALLOWED. By Telegraph —Press Association. Wellington, Last Night. The judgment of the Court of Appeal, given by His Honour the Chief Justice, was delivered to-day in the case of Elizabeth Welsh, widow, of Lyttelton and her husband’s executors, appellants, and the Canadian Government Merchant Marine, Co., Ltd., respondents. The appeal was from the judgment of Mr. Justice Herdman in an action brought by the executors of the late Isaac Welsh against the shipping company. Damages were claimed for the death of Welsh, who was killed by a cask of pelts falling !on him, following the breaking of a sling, and negligence on the part of the respondent company or its servants, was alleged. The acts of negligence relied on, were that first, the defendant company failed to take reasonable care to see that the sling was fit to be used, and, secondly, that the sling, having been used on the previous voyage of the ship, ought not td have been used on the second voyage, and om-’” to ha -e been discarded. After reviewing the accident, the judgment, stated that the learned jpdge found that it was proved beyond doubt that the slings provided were, from all external appearances, fit for use. He, however, found that the slings had, unknown to the ship’s officers and men, been weakened by coming into contact with sulphuric acid, which it had picked up from leaking casks in the previous July. It appeared from the evidence -that pelts were, in practice, immersed in pickle composed of water, sulphuric acid and salt. There was usually a fair amount of leakage from the casks when being loaded on ship board. “It is probable, therefore,” said the Chief Justice, “that leakage from casks of pelts laden in Jul}', 1925, may have come into contact with the sling which failed. Although the solution of sulphuric is very diluted, the learned judge has found that contact with this corrosive liquid in July, 1925, was the cause of the deterioration of the sling. We are, of course, bound by this determination.” The court thought that the suggested negligence which was being considered, was completely answered by the findings of the trial judge, which were, inter alia, that the slings were subjected to a proper examination and all proper precautions were taken to make sure that the slings were sound and fit for use. “It is quite impossible, we think,'' said His Honour, "for this court to go behind these findings of fact of the trial judge and that clearly disposes of the case for the appellants upon the first suggested head of negligence. “In regard to the second head, relating to the usage of slings that had been used on the previous voyage, the - judgment stated that this suggested the head of negligence had been virtually abandoned. ‘There was substantial evidence,” said His Honour, "that the practice deposed to was by no means a general or accepted one, and it was quite proper and in accordance with regular and proper usage, to use slings after proper examination, until they showed signs of deterioration by wear, chafing or otherwise.” The appeal was dismissed with costs on the highest scale, as upon a case from a distance.