Railwayman Claims £30,000 Damages

Press, Volume CV, Issue 31003, 8 March 1966, Page 3

Railwayman Claims £30,000 Damages

(A’ctr Zealand Press Association* AUCKLAND, March 7. In an action which will continue in the Supreme Court at Auckland tomorrow, a railway employee is claiming more than £30,000 damages for the “grievous” injuries he suffered when a case of fruit fell from a railway waggon and hit him on March 25,1963.

The plaintiff is Hubert Watts, aged 54, of Otahuhu, who is represented by Mr J. D. Dalgety and Mr S. G. Lockhart. The first defendant is the Apple and Pear Board represented by Mr M. H Vautier. The second defendant is the Attorney-General, sued in respect of the Railways Department, represented by Mr G. D. Speight. The hearing is before Mr Justice Woodhouse and a juryincluding one woman. The claim is for £30,000 general damages with special damages yet to be fixed, but about £4500 to £5OOO. Mr Watts says, in his state;ment of claim, that on March 25, 1963, he helped a truck driver to open the sliding door of a railway waggon in the Auckland railway yards. As the door slid open a case of fruit fell out and struck him on the back of the neck. As a result he suffered a| fracture of the spine and a broken right ankle. The plaintiff has since been undergoing treatment at the

(Civilian Rehabilitation I Centre. The use of both arms 'and both legs is grossly impaired and he is unable to ■ perform many simple actions. ! It is doubtful if he can return to gainful employment lon a permanent basis, says II he statement. Fruit had fallen from wag- ! gons before and responsible officers of the Apple and Pear Board were aware of that. Fruit could not fall if properly stowed. The board failed to stow the cases safely, to lay down la safe system of stowage, to : supervise stowage, to give any warning of danger, failed to take any precautions for the plaintiff’s safety, and submitted the plaintiff to dangerous and unnecessary risk, says the statement. The Railways Department failed to lay down a safe system for opening waggon doors, for stowing fruit or inspecting stowage.

The department failed to supply waggons suitable for safe stowage, to inspect the cargo, to take any or adequate steps to warn employees of the danger of falling cases, or to take any precautions for the plaintiff’s safety. The defence was a denial

lof the allegations. It con- | tended that if it was found | liable, it alleged that the I plaintiff was guilty of conj tributary negligence. In opening the waggon door the plaintiff had taken up a position in which he would be likely to be struck if anything fell, the defence contended He had failed to keep a proper lookout when he opened the door. He had failed as an experienced railway worker to take due care for his own safety. He had failed to instruct the driver. Lex Murray Macdonald, to take proper precautions to ascertain that no part of the load had shifted. The Railways Department denied the allegations, but contended it did not allege that the plaintiff was negligent nor that the accident was inevitable. It claimed that the accident was caused through the negligence of the Apple and Pear Board. Opening the plaintiff’s case. Mr Dalgety said the plaintiff sustained grievous injuries in the accident. The case of fruit had fallen 10 to 12 feet and hit Mr Watts. Mr Watts was now a paraplegic, that was. he had gross disorders affecting his limbs and other bodily functions