SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGES

Chronicle (Levin), 9 February 1949, Page 4

SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGES

Cfai'm Follows Misliap With Circular Saw After a two-day hearing in the Suprdriie Couft, Palriiersidn North, b'fefofd M?. Justiqe Ghris'tie and a jury, a' verdict was returned for £900 general damages and £33 9s special damages in favour of Raymond Michael Lynch, apprentice parpenter-jomer, of Levin, in an adtion braugrit by hiih agdinst Williarri Bry'arit Fottef, biiildef,- of LdViii. it arose from. an injtiry he had suffereri to his right eye when a piece of woqd flew frdiri a cirfeular saw he was operating. Lynch ciaimed! £1250 damages. Mr. N. M. Thomson, of Levin,represented Lynch, while Mr. Ti p.* McCarthy, df Wellihgtdn, appeared for Potter. The jury added the interesting and important rider that the Ippectipn . of Machinery Act should, in their opiriioh^ Be ameri'd§d to pfovide? for cdmpulsofy protdGtidri of kil portable saW bencnes. His HoriOur stated that the jury'srecomniehdation woiild be sent on to the pfoper author'ities. The' e'videricb showed that Potter had purchased a ten-inch portable ,saw beridh , complete with guards, and that the saw had been ' used with the guards attached in his workshop for some weeks, Subsequently the guards had been rerrioved and for some nine months-it Was operated by POttef's employ- ■ ees in a completely /unprotected Istate. In March; 1948, when Lynch fWas cutiing" a strip of wood off an architrave by means of the Saw, a I'thin splintex about eight inches fidng broke off, was picke'd up by the saw and flung f orward by it, strik- : ing Lynch in ihe eye. I Permanent Damage to Eye. !„ Medical evidehce Was given by Dr. J. S'. Monro, eye specialist, of Palmerston Forth, that Lyhdh had siiffered a permanent and incurable loss of vision in the right eye tO the; bxfent of riearly 50 pef G'ent.j wnile iri addition a cataract whidli had formed in the lens of the eye was causing him multiple visidri. Evidenc'e in support of Lynch's claim was also given by L. J. Rusden, a builder, of Pahiatua, who statqd that he had- operated a sirriiiai* ty.pe of bench over the past sik moriths. He said he had aiwdys" lised it with the guards attac'hbd, and had found these quite satisfactory and safe. N. D. Blair, the Wellington saies riianager of N. W. Thomas and COriip'any, Ltd., makers of the machine, stated that ihe bench was nevef supplie'd withoui the gudrds, dnd that in the opinion of Bis firm it should always be used with fHdm .attached. ' • For the defence, evidence :'wak given by Potter and by C. RichardS; of Levin, who had previously been Potter's foreman. Both stated that none of the builders iri the Horowhenua district ever use'd . guards with their nortable saws, and that in their opinion the use of a guarfi with such srriall machines Wa's qiiite unnecessary. Potter further stated that the guard on his machine had been unsatisfaetory, arid had been removed for that reason. Empidyers' Buty Stressed. Addressing the jury, Mf. Thomson stressed the 'duty of care tdJ War'ds their workers which the law imposes on employers, and emphasised the necessity for a safe and proper system of working irt the casb of every emp'byer Whose riian had to W°rk on machinery, or at tasks which might be a danger to them. If there Was a device readily available for mihimising the dangers incidental to the operation

of machinery, then such a device shoiil'd be used and the wo'fker not exposed to unnecessafy risks. It was admitted that the Inspection of Machinery Act did not apply to this particular saw bench, p.s it was only operated by a half horse power motor, but that 'did riot altef the coihmon law liability of tlie riiaster if he did not take 'all reasonable precdutions. In regard to Potter's contention that the guard had been removed becauke it was defective, counsel contended that did -not justify him in/taking the guard off and expecting " his man to take the risk of operating the improtected saw. Mr. McCarthy stressed the fact that most other builders did not seem to use a guard on their portable saws dnd that there was no r'eal risk to a worker using this particular saw without a guard, - although all regretted the unfortunate accident which Lynch had suffer'ed. He did not think that it Was reasonable to expect oWners of portable saws to protect them. The jury, ' after a retirement of' over three hours, fouhd Potter guilty of negligenc'e ih the following respects: — In failing to provide ,a reasonabl.y safe method or system at working the saw; in fexposing his apprehtice to an unnecessary and avoidable risk by causing the saw to be operated without a safety appliance or guard; by removing the safety applidnCes and guards supplied With thg mdchine;and in failing to take adequate and* sufficient care for the safety of his servant. j Judgment was entered in favour of Lynch for a total of £§33 9s, together with costs on the higher scale. — ~