SUPREME COURT, HOKITIKA.

Greymouth Evening Star, Volume XXXI, 10 May 1901, Page 4

SUPREME COURT, HOKITIKA.

John Reedy v. The King.

Claim for £SOO Damages.

At the last sitting of the Supreme Court, held atGreymouth, evidence in the case, John Reedy v. the King, was heard by Judge Donniaton in Chambers, in which plaintiff claimed £SOO damages for injuries sustained through alleged negligence on the part of the Public Works Department. Mr Guinness appeared for plaintiff and Mr Park as agent for Mr Hannan, on behalf of the Crown. The following judgment, has been received by the Registrar fifom Judge Denniston:— The petitioner, John Reedy, claims damages from the Crown for injuries sustained by the negligent and faulty construction and defect in a winch and in the support of certain sheerlegs in the erection of which petitioner was employed by the Public Works Department. The main facts are undisputed. The petitioner was one of a gang of four men, one of whom, M'Kinty, was in charge as ganger. They were engaged in erecting sheerlegs, that is, a pair of legs some 23 feet long", bolted together at the top, and separated at the bottom, which were to be used in repairing some damage to a railway. The method of raising these was to place the butts in holes in the ground and to raise the top with a lever, building up, as they were raised, sleepers under them'to retain the height grained. The ground not being level, single sleepers were used to the height of three aleepors till the level was gained, and thereafter the sleepers wero built in fours forming a platform, which the witness cillod a "pigsty,," It seems admitted that this is a usual and in ordinary cases a a ife method ; though it is agreed that mire perfect security would be gained by patting in dogs or spikes against each sleeper, and tome witnesses stato that this would particularly be advisable when, as in the present caso, the weather was wet and the sleepers consequently more liable to slip. A rope wa3 attached to the top of the shoorlegs which was carried t 3 a winch sumo distance from their butts, the intention apparen ly being to finish tho hoisting by its mnans. Reedy was sent to the winch, with, M'Kinty siys. instructions to take in the slack of the rope. This Reedy denies, but the point is unimportnant he admits that he know he was to take in slack. When tho platform was some 3 feet high, the sheerlegs fell, causing tho winch handle to turn rapidly, taking it out of Reedy's hands, and causing it to strike him on the head, inflicting the serious injuries deposed to in the medical evidence. \\ hat was the causo of the logs falling is disputed. The four persons give, as is not unusual in matters which occur in a few moments of time, different accounts of what took place. Two of the witnesses— Georgeham and Kitchinghani—are en-

tirely disinterested and gave their evi- 1 dence with apparently perfect honesty and straightforwardness. M'Kinty alleges that Reedy, after taking in the slack, continued, contrary to instructions, to heave on the winch, thereby raising the legs above the platform. He attributes the accident to Recdy's so doing ,md in (as far as I can gather ids meaning) allowing the handle carelessly to slip from him. licedy was an elderly man, without any experience with a winch or in that class of work. McKinty admits that he saw tho legs suspended by the heave on the winch for about a minute, and did not call to Reedy to lower them, or to do anything. Georgoham docs not suggest that tho legs were held by the winch as suggested by McKinty. He says they fell two feet -before touching the platform. Kitchingham •;ays M'Kinty and Georgeham had the sherlegs off—that is off the platform they had tho lever under it at the time. Ho says "I can't say whether they had all tho weight or whether Seedy had it." He says he doesn't suppose it would b 9 up : two or thi e) minutes before it (the legs) «ave way and that he thinks the legs were three or fo.ir feet off the platform when they fell. It is clear that the legs must have fallen some two or three feet to give the impetus necessary to send the handle round with the force it must have gone. Tho evidence seem?,' on the whole, against the original case of the petitioner as to the cause of the accident that the platform was insecurably built and gave way, bringing down the leg. If, however, they were, at the time of the fall, two or threo feet above the platform, with M'Kinty and Kitciiingbam working at them with the lever, M'Kinty mus. have been knowingly taking advantage, for a not inconsiderable space of time, of Ready having a strain on the rope beyond what was necessary to take in slack. Indeed he admits this to be the case. If that be so, I cannot see how he, and experienced man, can say it was negligence or carelessness or breach of duty on the part of an inexperienced man like Reedy to put such strain on. I conclude, therefore, that there is nothing to show that the accident was caused by negligence on Rcedy's part. M'Kinty stales they could have raised the legs by the use of the winch alone with more men at the winch. "We would," he says, "have used two men at each handle." That would certainly suggest that to allow the legs to be held above the platform by the winch alone in the hands of one man was a careless and risky proceeding. The only other conclusions would be cither (hat there was negligence on the part of some of the others (which would require to be proved), or that the accident was one which might not unreasonably he expectod to happen in the circumstances, and under the conditions in which the work was being done. In that case it would be an obligation on the persons controlling the work to have the tackle and appliances, as far as rersonably possible, suitable and fit for such work. Now it is abundantly proved that the winclt in this case was of a very inferior class, and in very bad order. It was produced to the Court and witnesses. All the expert witnesses agree that if so ordinary an appliance as a pawl on the winch, it would most probably have arrested the motion of the winch barrell and prevented the accident. I think the absence of reasonable appliances amounts to actionable negligence, Stanton v. Scrutton and Sons (l!2 L.J. Q.B. 405). The petitioner has been seriously injured, practically disabled for life. I assess the damages at £4OO. Judgement for £4OO, costs as per scale, disbursements and witnesses' expenses.