ACCIDENT ON SHIP

Auckland Star, Volume LXXIII, Issue 117, 20 May 1942, Page 8

ACCIDENT ON SHIP

A WATERSIDER'S CLAIM

Whether the use of a single sling only, or of a "bridle" (two slings), in discharging timber from a ship's hold by wharf crane was the acknowledged practice, having regard to the safety of the workers, was the subject of evidence in the case Arthur George Smith (Mr. Sullivan) v. Union Steamship Company (Mr. Hamer) before Mr. Justice Fair and a jury in the Supreme Court to-day. Plaintiff claimed £750 general and £267 special damages in respect to alleged permanent disablement caused by being struck by a piece of timber that had slipped from a single sling while he was working a* a hatchman on a ship discharging timber in April last year. Evidence for plaintiff also included that of experienced cargoworkers to support his statement that the responsibility for the style of sling used was dictated by the foreman on the job, and not by the hatchman, whose duty it was to see to the proper adjustment of the sling and hoisting of the load to ensure safety for workers in the hold. Plaintiff stated that the accident to him was caused by the use of a central sling instead of a "bridle" sling, and that this method of working was at the direction of the foreman, though plaintiff had suggested a bridle. He was a spare man, temporarily replacing the regular hatchman at the time of the accident.

For the defendant, Mr. Hamer said evidence would be called to show that the timber in the sling in question was short timber, on which only one wire was ordinarily used. It would also be shown that the responsibility for the safe slinging of the timber was on the hatchman, and further that in this particular instance the plaintiff himself was negligent in not carrying out his duty of watching the sling fully and carefully in the interest of safety of both himself and his fellow workers.

The case is proceeding.