SUPREME COURT

Hokitika Guardian, 8 March 1927, Page 2

SUPREME COURT

SAAYMILL FATALITY CLAIM. f GitEYAIOUTIi, Alareh 8. At the Supreme Court yesterday, before Air Justice Adams, as a sequel to the accident at lliggin’s and Fawcett’s sawmill at Brown’s Creek, Inangahwn, on October sth., 1926 in which Peter varmody employee at the mill, was killed by coming in contact with a circular saw the Public Trustee claimed from Peter John Higgins, J. AY. Fawcett and C. Fawcett. £4OOO damages as compensation for the death of deceased. CLAIM AND DEFENCE. Tn the statement of claim it was alleged that through the negligence of the defendants deceased was killed at the sawmill, through being struck by a patent “fiddling” saw. Defendants did not have the saw under proper control and provided with skids of suffi- -y eient length, and properly and the saw was not properly protected and was defective. The death of the deceased was not caused through his own negligence. The earnings of deceased were not less than £5 Ss per week, and he contributed the whole towards the support of his children.

In the statement of defence it was denied that the action was brought on behalf of the deceased’s children. It was admitted that accused was killed at the mill hut a denial was given to the rest of the allegations. The defence declared that deceased had left his proper duties as “slahby” and operated the saw without instructions, and was killed through his own wilful default, or contributory negligence. Lengthy evidence was taken. His Honour, in summing up, remnrk-

od that the damages given in such cases were only pecuniary damages, designed to cover loss of maintenance, not sorrow or anything of that kind. He drew attention- to the fact that deceased had contributed £2 12s fid per week towards the maintenance of his children. He did not think the jury were limited to a close calculation on the basis of this sum, combined with the ages of the children, which, counsel had submitted, worked out at £loo. < They were, however limited to pecuniary damages only. He mentioned that plaintiff had admitted in evidence that lie could not justify a larger sum than £SOO. If they found for plaintiff, their duty was to decide what was a fair sum to allow plaintiff as guardian ol the children for their pecuniary loss. QUESTIONS AND VERDICT. The issues submitted to the jury wit'll their findings were as follows: (1) Did the defendants commit a breach of any statutory duty ?—Yes. (2) Mere tile defendants guilty of negligence, apart from breach of statutory duty ?—Yes. (3) If so. was that negligence the cause of the accident ?—Yen. '‘-■sst (I) AVas the working of the fiddling? saw within the scope of the deceased’s employment ?—No, (5) A\ as the deceased guilty of negligence ?—No. (0) If so was that negligence tho cause of the accident P —No answer. (7) AYliat sum. if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover ?—£looo. Ihe ease was then adjourned until this morning, when tho Judge will lie.ii* legal argument on the non-suit motion.