£2000 DAMAGES CLAIMED

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 2154, 21 May 1914, Page 3

£2000 DAMAGES CLAIMED

mom THE MM CO.

WATERSIDE WORKER'S DEATH

Arising out of a fatal accident on tho morning of March 31 last, whereby n wharf labourer named 'I'hos,' Caldwell met, his death, a claim for £2000 daw-BK'-S was heard at the Supremo Court yesterday, before His Honour Mr. Justice Hosking.

Tho plaintiff was Lnoiuda Caldwell, widow of the deceased, and sho was represented by Sir. A. Gray. K.C., with Mr. E. J. Fitiigibbon. The defendants were tho Union Steam Ship Co,, for whom Mr. T. M. Wilford and Mr. i'. 1 Levi appeared.

Outlining the <?'ase for the plaintiff, Mr. '(.-fay said tliat on the morning of March 31 deceased, when in tho employ of tho Union Steam Ship Co., was assisting to unload cargo from tho s.s. Maitai, at the J'ervors Quay Wharf, Caldwell was a member of the new Wharf Labourers' Union, formed during the time- of the strike, and lio was employed by tho Union Company >iuruik the strike, ami up to the time, of his death. _At the time of his death ho was helping to remove heavy sacks of superphosphates from tho toehold of the Maitai. Each saok svould weigh about 2 ,<nvt., and about eight sacks usually went to the sling. A sling, loaded with tho heavy sacks of superphosphates, was being raised, when suddenly tbo rope broke, and tho whole load fell a distance of about 30' ft,, upon Caldwell, who was kille'd at once. fiction for Negligence. The action was based upon j;egligcnco of the- defendant' company, said Sir. Gray. 'They should not have allowed the sling to be used when it was m a ruined state. It- was the duty of the employer, 110 contended, to take reasonable caro in providing proper appliances for tho .use of the workmen, and to maintain those appliances in a proper, condition. The .rope in the pM* sent ease, he held, would speak for ittelf. It was generally conceded tilat tbo load was a reasonable ono. Then there hitd been a process of "speeding up" on the wharves, which did jiot allow the men to take much heed for tlfcmselves.

Without wishing' to go into the defejioo,_ Mr. Gray said that ho wanted to point out that- tho defendant company said that tliey used all reasonable and usaal care, and that the 6courrenco which resulted in the death of Caldwell was duo to inevitable accident. Contributory negligence on the Part of Caldwell was also alleged, the company saying that ho was guilty of negligence in not taking stops to get under shelter when the load was clear of the hatch. The process of "speeding up" mnde.it practically impossible for tho men to do so, for a m»n who was observed to bft moro careful of his life and limbs than of the company's interest in getting the c.irgo out quickly. Would probi'ihlv not have been long employed in unloading. Further, Mr. Gray contended that there was no system' of inspection of the gear, and tlie men relied upon the gear provided.

Ltucinda Caldwell gave evidence that at tlie time nf her husband's death he ■vras earning from .€3 Ms. to £S sa. per week. He was 44 years of.ago, and in perfect health.

To 'Mr. Wilford, witness,. admitted that she was aware that the Union Company would have to pay £500 under tho Workers' Compensation Act. .Edward Bradley, who was working with Caldwell on "the morning rjf the accident, said that the slings wore usually safe to carry 25cwt. He thought that there were nine bags in tlie -sling when it Woke. Tlioy. had received instructions to fill the slings, a»- "dump* ing" was going on. When the slings went up tho_ Iratehman' slwmtod ''Stand clear." arid it was tho duty of tho men in tho holds to get under tho coamings. "Dumping" Cargo. Explaining the process known as "dumping" witness said that it- .constituted, placing the bags on the wharf. When they were not dumping the slings wero made tip of small quantities, and were planed on trucks and taken at enen to tlie sheds. Mr. Gray : What is the fe&gon for dumping? • Witness: I clo not know, unless St i-s to get the cargo out quicker. To Mr. Wilford;• It was the men's duty to. stand clear wjion the hatchman tailed out. It was left to tbo men to look tip ?.nd see that the batchway was before tjioy came «ut. When Caldwell ivcufc out witness followed, because he thought that tho hatchway was clear. Ho was struck and iniured by the falling sacks.' The men el-iaaged l>v the company laics' that they had to discard a rope which was in any wav defective. Witness was of opinion that Caldwell knew tliat, Mr. Wilford: As king as Vou remained under cover vow could'not have been injured ?■—'"No."

Does' "dumping" mean that you have. te work at a greater speed'?—"No; only that you load more on your sliiigs."

Further, witness said that lie, had kiio.wn of new ropes breaking, Victor B-atson, who was working with Caldwell on the morning of the accident, said that they used their tion in loading tho slings. No particular instructions were given .as to the number of sacks to be put ill. To Mr. Wilfofd: There was nothing to prevent a man discarding a sting if he thought it unfit te be used. If ho did so, this sailor in the hold cut the ropo to prevent its further use. Witness «;enoral.ly looked up the hatch to sec that it was clear, but- the usual pr.wtics uas to go by the sound of the Winch, _Thos. Kors'in, hateWnan at tile, time of the accident, said'that the men were always iolrt to stnnd clear before tho load vras lifted. He would not allow men to work in the open while a sling was going up. When tho ship, was full there were no wings for the men to get under, and they worked in what was-called a""trunk-way." There wns a certain amount of risk in a ''trunkway," as there wero no coamings for the men to ..get under. They stood at the comers of the trunk-way while the ■sling was going up. George G, Farlaiid, secretary of the old Watorsido Workers' Union, said that lse had -never seen any inspection .of slings by officers of tlie ships before, they were used. Tlie ropo (produced) vvlsioli was the one in use at il-io time of the accident, was, in liis opinir-», perished. Judging ,'by the external appearance of the sling he would use it for an ordinary weight of 12ewt, or I4c\vt. Having made a careful ex-.nm-iiwti-on of tlie rope, witness said that he would not use it for a bid of It'ewt 1 . He thought the reason of the rope -breaking was tlmt a number ff ■short ends had eoiiie together. That was a defi-ct in j In* 'manufacture. The, objeet of "dimming" was to speed up the discharge of the vessel. It involved 'quicker work, The case was adjourned till tiiis morn, ing.