DEATH OF LINESMAN

Waikato Independent, Volume XL, Issue 3667, 13 February 1940, Page 5

DEATH OF LINESMAN

SAFETY BELT NOT WORN FATALITY AT CAMBRIDGE The laxity among power board employees in the use of safety equipment when working on poles, and the need for more rigid regulations in this respect received continent from the Coroner, Mr W. F. Platts, when an inquest was held in the Cambridge Court yesterday concerning the death of Thomas Marsden Harwood, who was killed when he fell from a power pole at Fencourt on December 13. The verdict returned was that Harwood was accidently killed, the Coroner adding that it was unfortunate that deceased was not using a safety belt at the time, as the evidence showed that he would not have lost his life if he had worn the belt. „, ' Onus »n Workmen The Act was.,clear that the onus was on the workmen to use the safety appliances that were provided, but the evidence showed that there had been laxity, said Mr Platts. Since tjm, accident, the Cambridge Power Board had issued an instruction in the matter, but it did not go far enough. The Coroner considered that. it shoilld be the duty of the overseer to make sure that the men were obeying instructions. - Dr H. C. Tod gave evidence that he examined the body at Fencourt and found .that tlie neck had apparently been broken. Death had been practically • instantaneous. Andrew Broderson, a linesman employed by the Cambridge Power Board, and a brother-in-law of the deceased, stated that he was working on the same set of lines with Harwood. Witness was about half a mile away when he received word that caused him to go to his brother Tin-law. He found Harwood was dead. Mr Broderson said he did not know what caused deceased to fall. He had always enjoyed good health. F. Cooper, an. employee of the Power Board,- as-foreman linesman, stated that he was engaged with his gang on the power line at Fencourt. At about 4 pan. he left Harwood working; ’on -a’ dead line of; wires about 20fL from the ground. He was standing on a ladder which was rest-jag;-against a pole. Other workmen, including the deceased’s brother-in-law, Andrew Broderson, were engaged on the same set of wires some distance away. Witness had walked about two chains away from. Har\vood when he observed ; that Harwood was missing from the pole. He immediately went to investigate, accompanied by a tradesman, who was nearby. ... . . Deceased was found lying on his face in the .long near the foot of the pole! His head appeared to fall limply when moved, but in case he had suffered an ,electric sjjock, witness immediately commenced artificial respiration and sent for a doctor. . - Harwood was not using a safety belt at .th?i time, although one was available./or. him to use. Belt a Hindrance To the. Coroner, Mr Cooper said it was his duty tQ..se.e that deceased was wearing a.sajfety belt, but it was a, common practice that the body belts w’ere. ijjot worn in cases like the. job the. deceased was working on., . The reason for this was that the body belt was a hindrance to the : workmen. To Constable Maisey, witness said that jf. the belt had been worn it would haye saved .Harwood’s life. Herbert Claude Oaten, engineer of the Cambridge!, Power Board, stated that he was called to the scene of .the. accident and found the deceased lying ; on the ground where artificial respiration was being applied workmen. After the arrival ofthe doctor it was realised that deceased had been killed instantly., . , He checked, oyer the safety equipment on. the truck and found that the safety belts ytere there. The wording of the Act placed the onus of wearing the belt on the workmen. i To the Coroner, Mr Oaten said there was considerable laxity among workmen in using the safety appliances. In this case there was no excuse for the non-wearing of the belt. Not Foreman’s Responsibility Since the accident the Power Board had issued an instruction that the men working on the poles must wear the safety belt. No onus

was thrown* on the foreman to see that the instruction was carried out. To Mr Lundon, Mr Oaten, stated that deceased had been a good, conscientious workman. The ladder was quite sound. John Hamilton, an engineer employed by the Public Works Department at Hamilton, stated that he made an investigation into the cause of death of Thomas Harwood. He was satisfied that the line on which deceased was working was dead at the time. “Deceased was not wearing a safety belt at the time of the accident, although issued with one, and yet the job he was doing was one on which a safety belt could have been used to advantage, and would haye prevented deceased falling to the ground.” |J Mr Hamilton l added that, the regulations issued Ay the Public Works Department to "power boards provided that the boards supply to workmen all safety appliances to meet electrical hazards, including safety belts, but the responsibility of using them was thrown on the worker.

Constable C. H. Maisey stated that deceased’s left boot showed a distinct mark, as though lie had slipped on some hard substance. Witness was satisfied that the deceased was on good terms with all members of the Power Board staff.