THE COLERIDGE FATALITY

Hokitika Guardian, 21 November 1925, Page 1

THE COLERIDGE FATALITY

NO CASE FOR SPECIAL DAMAGES.

WELLINGTON, Nov. 19,

Mr P. ,7. O’Regan, the legal adviser to the New Zealand Workers’ Union, of which the victims of the Coleridge tunnel fatality were members, lias submitted an opinion to its executive on the question whether a claim can be made against the contractor for special damages in addition to the usual amount granted under the terms of the Workers’ Compensation Act. Mr O’Bogan reviews tbe nature of the contract, and points out that it goes without saving that the tunnel through ancient moraine is treacherous for tunnelling, there being no such cohesion as usually is found in stratified formation, and. though there is no drip of water, the puddle in the floor of the tunnel shows that a considerable quantity percolates through the mass of rocks, angular boulders, rubble mil sand.

Tho opinion proceeds; “The fall by which flic men were killed occurred at a curve in the tunnel two sets of timber from tlie face. Each set extends for about 16ft Gin. and thus it would seem Unit the fall occurred between the end of the finished or concreted work and the face, say over a length of 33ft. Beyond the face was the heading or ‘cuddy.’ and two men. Daly and Archer, wove at work- there. The heading is really a miniature tunnel, and, as ihe risk of collapse diminshes in proportion to the smallness of the excavation, it was taken for granted after the fall that these two men were alive and could be rescued. Happily such proved to he ihe fact. J.t would seem that the deceased men were niisliing Ihe second set of timber, putting in the last spring bar and laths, when I lie fail look place. It is beyond ~i.cs-1 1 ion that tho accident was not due >o any defect in the timber. There can be no doubt- that the men themselves were satisfied with the method of work. They were experienced men, an 1 any suggestion of negligence is met with the reply that the men themselves wore satisfied. Moreover, it must he admitted that if they wore dissatisfied with anything they had hut to complain and their wishes would have been attended to. It must nerrr ho forgoton that counsel incurs seri ius ns.u risibility in advising an action for damages independently of the Workers Compensation Act, lor the reason tha r . in the event of the action failing. Cm plaintiff has to submit to judgment under that Act for compensation from which is deducted defendant's i >sts in I lie action for damages. Ha.vig regard to all the cireuinsiau ms. lienfore. I must advise that this i r - a rase where the dependants of the lorensod men must look to the Moa-os Ciinproisal ion Act alone. the Widows Will be entitled to the maximum ''empemalioii. namely. £730, togoHur a'lh funeral expenses not- exceeding COO.