INJURED HAND

Dominion, Volume 33, Issue 190, 8 May 1940, Page 14

INJURED HAND

Workman Claims £938 Damages SUPREME COURT CASE A claim for £938 damages for injuries to a hand was brought before Mr. Justice Ostler and a jury of 12 in the Supreme Court. Wellington, yesterday by Albert Cole, carpenter and joiner, of Upper Hum, against Ills employer, Gordon Kiley Norman, builder and contractor. Upper Hutt. .Mr. C. Evans-Scott appeared for plaintiff and Mr, T. V. Cleary for defendant. Tire statement of claim set out that when the accident occurred Cole was employed 'by defendant as a woodworking machinist and joiner at defendant's factory in Martin 'Street, Upper Hutt. Ou April 21. 1939, while he was surfacing a piece of timber on a spindle moulder at firn factory, Cole's right hand slipped into the knives of the revolving spindle, and was injured. The spindle moulder was a machine driven by ele.nlricity, and the spindle, it was claimed, ought, pursuant to Section 16 (1) of the Inspection ot Machinery Act, 1928, to have been ,so guarded as to afford adequate protection to all persons working the machine. The spindle was not. guarded at the time of the accident. As a result of the •accident the plaintiff suffered and would continue to suffer permanent loss of earning power and personal inconvenience and disfigurement. Cole bad suffered loss of wages from April 21. 1939, to July 13, 1939, at the rate of £6/10/- a week, less worker’s compensation received, for which credit was given. Plaintiff claimed £9OO general damages, and £3B/16/11 special damages. The statement of defence denied that there was any negligence or breach of statutory liability. At the time of the accident, it was claimed, an adequate guard was to the knowledge of plaintiff provided for use on the spindle moulder, but plaintiff failed and neglected to use the guard. At the time of the accident plaintiff was attempting, to carry out certain surfacing or planing work on the spindle moulder for which it was not intended or adapted, and for which the plaintiff should have used one of two other machines, known as buzzers, provided and available in the factory for carrying out such work. The accident was caused or contributed to by the negligence of plaintiff in that he failed or neglected to use the guard provided for use with the spindle moulder, and that he attempted to use the spindle moulder for work for which it was not intended or adapted instead of using one of the buzzers.

Cross-examined by Mr. Cleary, Cole said that he was the only machinist in the factory, and, with his experience, knew more about the machines than either Norman or the foreman. Albert Wall, inspector of machinery at Wellington, said he visited, defendant’s factory at Upper Hutt on September 26, 1938, and again on April 14, 1939. On the second occasion, he suggested that a second guard should be secured for the moulding machine. This machine had a guard, and his reason for suggesting that a second guard should be provided was that if two guards were available it was more likely that one would always be on the machine.

Defendant’s Evidence. The defendant, Gordon Riley Norman, said that he had a good opinion of Cole as a machinist, and had paid him 5Jd. an hour above the award rate. When the inspector of machinery advised him to get a guard, he rang up a Wellington firn), but could not get one till some days afterward, as he was told that the guard would have to be obtained from Christchurch. Plaintiff should have used the buzzer instead of the moulder for shaping boards. Francis John Henry, foreman in defendant’s factory, said he was going into camp shortly. He considered that plaintiff. when he met with the accident, should have been using the driver-buzzer instead of the moulding machine. His Honour said that from the case as presented to him it wjffi clear that there was no guard on the machine in question, and obviously that was a statutory breach. The question appeared to be, was the plaintiff himself guilty of contributory negligence in using a machine without a guard. If he was justified in using the machine, then there was statutory liability. Mr." Evans-Scott said that the real and substantial cause of the accident was the failure to have the machine guarded. Cross-examined by Mr. Evans-Scott, the foreman of the factory said that the workman who took Cole’s place after the accident finished the job Cole had been engaged upon on the same machine. The case will be continued at 10 o’clock this morning.