FERRY ACCIDENT

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 281, 16 August 1918, Page 6

FERRY ACCIDENT

ROLLER ON A STEAMER'S GANGWAY CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FAILS A caso of interest to ferry steamer passengers was heard by Mr. S. E. M'Carthy, S.M., at the Magistrate's Court yesterday, when Alfred John Dingle, motor engineer, of Rona Bay, proceeded against the Eastbourne Borough Council to recover tho sum of £') 2s. as damages for injuries received to one of his feet through it being crushed by the roller of a gangway or a ferry steamer owned by the defendant council. 'Mr. G. Watson appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. H. Buddie for the defendant.

Plaintiff stated that on April 22 last he .was a passenger by the ferry steamer which left the city for Rona Bay at 5.20 p.m. On arrival at the bay he proceeded to leave the s'eamer, and had one foot on the gangway when the vessel rolled, with tho result that the gangway slid back and injured one of his toes. There were a number of passengers waiting to leave the vessel, and as they 6tood around the gangway it was impossible to see tho end of it. The gangway was fitted with an iron roller, which was considered to bo dangerous, and a communication upon tho subject had been forwarded to the Borough Council by the Eastbourne Ratepayers' Association. Subsequently the roller was removed and replaced by iron wheels. Plaintiff stated that on account of the accident he was unabU to go to work for one day, # and was limping for a week. On dark nights there was a light on the steamer to show passengers the way to the gangway, but it was 60 dim that it was of little use. Replying to Mr. Buddie, plaintiff said it was'customaiy for passengers to crowd round the gangway when a ferry 6teamer was nearing the wharf, and one had to moVe with tho crowd and practically step blindly for the end of the gangway. C. G. Richards, secretary to the. Eastbourne Ratepayers' Association, said that on account of tho danger of people hav-' ing their feet crushed by the roller on (he gangway he had made representations to the Borough Council. Constable Thompson, stationed at Rona Bay, stated that he knew of two accidents of a similar nature to that suffered by plaintiff. John Jones, wharfinger ot Rona Bay, testified to seeing two or three accidents caused .'by the roller crushing passengers' feet. In rough weather he drew the attention of passengers to the danger of the gangway. Since the alterations had been made to the gangway there had been no accidents.

Mr. Buddie contended that if passengers crowded round a gangway when a vessel was moving about through the surging of the eea and an accident occurred no claim *could be made against the owners of the vessel, as the accident would be due to the passengers' own negligence.. The placing of a roller on a gangway was not in itself a, negligent act. Previously the Eastbourne Borough Council had used an old pattern of gangway, but owing to the increase in population on the eastern side of the harbour it was found necessary to provide a larger, and consequently. a heavier, type. In order to prevent the end of the gangway from scraping the deolc of the" council's steamer a roller was placed at the end. If tho roller did slightly increase the danger it was tho duty of passengers to exercise proper care when preparing to step on to the gangway. John William Gower, leading hand on the steamer Duchess at the time of the accident, said he helped 'o place the gangway in position, but did not hear of an accident having occurred. There were three lights within six feet of the gangway. During his two years' experience on the ferry steamers lie had never seen a serious accident caused through a gangway crushing a person's feet. James S.. Day, manager of the ferry service, said that such a gangway as that complained of was in use in various ports;- It was known as the counterbalance gangway. A roller, consisting of a 2in. galvanised iron pipe,' had been fitted to prevent one end ploughing into the decks of tho steamers. In order to prevent passengers from putting their feet under the gangway the structure was made as safe as possible. The gangway was first used on Christmas Eve, 1917. Thousands of people had passed over it, and Mr. Dingle's accident was the first that had come under the council's notice. The Ratepayers' Association had written complaining about the gangway, and the Ferry Service Board of the council had taken the matter Jnto consideration. The gangway was constructed on expert advice, and the roller was recently replaced by wheels, but in witness's opinion thero was just as much risk of accident under present conditions as there was, previously. George Rowan, shipwright, said lie had had 30 years' experience in tho supervision and construction' of gangways. The roller construction was in common use, and was as efficient as any other where a rough sea had to be contended with. Ilis Worship said a gangway was liaJble to shift with the movement of the vessel, and there wus considerable danger, especially- when the sea was . rough and the steamer was crowded. The defendant council had provided a heavy gangway, but it was found that it qhafed the'deck of tho steamers, and a roller was fixed at one end. If there was any risk m getting on,and off a steamer by means of a gangway passengers had to take that risk In- the present case the evidence was' not very convincing-as to whether tho risk incident to leaving the ship or going on the ship would be lessened by some other kind of gangway, but the evidence did show that the risk was greater when ihere was a crowd, lliere was no crush on tho occasion under notice, and plaintiff could have waited until the other passengers had got oil the vessel. He chose, however, to leave alone with the other people. , Judgment was given for the defendant council, with costs 21s.