CLAIM FOR DAMAGES.

Hokitika Guardian, 15 December 1922, Page 4

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES.

OTIRA TUNNEL WORKERS’ CLAIM CHRISTCHURCH, Dec 13. J A claim against the Public Works ; Department for £2OOO for damages and j compensation on account of an accident at the Otira Tunnel on December i 2nd., 1921, was heard in the Supreme j Court (yesterday. It was made by Joseph Anderson, labourer, fifty-six years of age, who was employed as a labourer by- tho department at Arthur’s Pass, helping to take rails ami sleeper.into the tunnel on a light railway. He stated that he was injured on a truck on which he was riding jumping of the line and throwing him between two trucks. Ho claimed that the accident was due. to tho department’s negli genre, as the light railway line was not fixed to the ground and was liable to move when loaded trucks passed over it, and was not firm enough t*. support a load ; that it was in suc-l had condition that the rails spread when the truck passed over it, causing tho truck to go off the rails; that several broken fish-plates had not been

replaced; that as no accommodation was provided for workmen going into the tunnel with material on the light ra.ilway. they had to ride on top o! matciria! in tho trucks; anil that; the. trucks were pushed into the tunnel in front of'the electric, locomotive instead of being drawn by one. Anderson had his right leg fractured at the ankle, and his left leg was so badly injured that it had to be amputated below the knee. Ho was in Hospital from Decciiuber 2nd., 1921, to July 4th.. 1922, and ho set out that ho would not he able to work as a labourer again.

Tho Department denied negligence and stated that it was willing to give Anderson compensation under the Workers’ Compensation for Accidents Act. The case was brought under the Crown Suits Act. and was hoard before his Honour Air Justice Adams, and a x-jK'ajul jury of .twelve. Air A\. JHunter, with him Afr L. A. Charles, appeared for the suppliant ami Air A. T. Donnelly for tho respondent. Mr Hunter said that the department had already paid Anderson £2OO. Under the Workers’ Compensation for A; cidoiits Act, it was liable to pay J. bonL JtkVJ'd more, that Act limiting liability to £750 at tho time Anderson’s accident happened, although the limit was nc-reascd to £10IK) last year. Anderson’s injures were so severe that ] u , claimed a larger sum under another Act. Anderson said that lie was married. H- earned oil. an average 25s to 28s a day (luring his last year of work. The Department had paid him £3 19s a \w since- the accident. He had been employed on the Alidlaud Railway for twenty years. There was no light in the. tunnel where the act-ith nt Happened. IL- was not well educated, {Hid lie had no training lor any \ocation except mining, which ho could not follow now. James; Al’G-oagle, platelayer, said that the rails had been there for at least three years. The line was all shaky. John Scanlon., who drove the lu;o----imitive at the time of the accident, said that all lights acre out in Dm v• i,i:-. ■! tlint day. The r;:l- and the fish-plates v.t-ie in a very had condition. Arthur Dudley Dobson, civil engineer, said that he served his time in tin

Lytoltori Tunnel, and had had more * than sixty years’ experience in his pro- ‘ to-:-ion. The locomotive ho saw-on the lii o in the Otira Tunnel, which weighr ! about twelve tons, was too heavy f:,r the rails. It would cause oscillation. which would result in the spreading of the In.'. The sleepers he saw there were very faulty. As a contractor, he felt that he would take crave risks in using the line'. Several workers employed on the line gave evidence- as to the conditions : I the rails and sleepers. No evidence was call'd by respondent.

Leave was given to -Mr Donnelly to ; iiiovci, after the verdict, for a nonsuit,' a the grounds (1) that no negligence-j was proved (2) that if there was negligence' there was no proof that nbrought about the accident. .Mr Hunter, addressing the- jury, aid that the loss of a leg was teri ihly inconvenient to a professional man. hut ho could attend to his work in that condition. To a labourer, without any business training. and m ith a poor education it was a disaster that no sum could compensate for adequately. Mr Donnelly said that- it was not necessary for the Dcpatrment to establish tiui reason for the derailing of tlio truck. The liability was on tho nippliant to prove negligence. The .viatie of the evidence was biassed m the highest- degree. The jury should not be swayed, by the fact that the claim was against the Crown. It really was against every member of the comtmnky as a si'iparate- entity, and should he considered as il it was made , -,y an ordinary employee against a j private employer. His Honour said hat the jury wero not hound to arc-apt the evidence. It was for them to decide whether or i,at it was so exaggerated as to he incredible. It did not follow that because evidence was called on only one side, either tho .Judge or the jury must necessarily lie guided hv it. They had {., do justice according to t.vnr vie>\s niter hearing the evidence. The jury retired at 5.h r > returned at 5.40 p.m. with a verdict for the, suppliant for the sum claimed. Mr Hunter moved for judgment. His Honor reserved for consideration the motion for judgment and live motion for a nonsuit.