SUPREME COURT

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 3091, 23 May 1917, Page 6

SUPREME COURT

CLAIM. FOR DAMAGES. . - :_ In the Supreme Court yesterdav morning, His Honour Mr. Justice Hosking, with a jury of fonr, heard an action for damages brought by John Walsh ■ against William Butler. The claim was for ,£255. Mr. P. J. O'Regan appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. T. S. Neave for defendant. Tho statement of claim set forth that on September 11, 1916, plaintiff was engaged at Day's Bay in painting a house which was then being repaired by defendant. ' For the purpose of his work plaintiff ascended and was working from ft ladder (provided by defendant) at a height of 17 feet, when the ladder sagged and oarried away. Plaintiff was precipitated to the ground, and had his left leg broken below the knee. He had •rfince been totally disabled from undertaking work of any kind, and his leg was permanently shortened. It was contended that the ladder was in an unsafe condition, since it had been lengthened by the addition of two.pieces of batten sawn from half-inch boards. -Plaintiff said he had been disabled for a period of 35 weeks, duriujr which time his indemnijfier, the South British Insurance Company, had paid him .£42/ being compensation for 20 weeks. Plaintiff gave credit for 6uch payments, but claimed in addition special damages, 20 weeks at £i 2s. a week, being balance of wages lost, .£•12; 15 weeks at £i 45., .£63; and general damages, £150—total, £255.

The statement of defence denied that any statutory duty existed under the Scaffolding Inspection Act, 1008, in connection with the work performed by plaintiff. - Plaintiff, it was further alleged, was responsible for using the ladder from which ho fell, and was well awaro of the defect in tho same. Defendant therefore pleaded tho application of the principle volenti non fit injuria. It was also contended tliat the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act had been complied with by defendant, and that plaintiff was debarred from bringing any action at common law against defendant. In the afternoon tho jury retired for a 6hort time while counsel and the Bench discussed what issues-should be put to it.

The issues were formulated as under: (1) Did the defendant provide tho defec-tive-ladder? (2) Did the foreman direct the plaintiff to use the defective ladder? ('■)) Did tho defendant provide and have available proper scaffolding to be eercted by the foreman as required? (4) Did the plaintiff know that the said scaffolding was so available? (5) Did the plaintiff himself appreciate and consent to take the risk involved in using the defective ladder? (G) Was the plaintiff himself negligent? The jury Teturnod affirmative answers io the first three questions and ncgativo answers to the last three; also a verdict for the plaintiff for .£175 damages. Mr. O'Regan formally moved ilint judgment bo entered accordingly. Mr. Neavo gave notice that he intended to apply for a nonsuit or a new trial. Mr. O'Regan's motion was adjourned, and will be heard together with Mr. Neave's application.