CLAIM FAILS

Hokitika Guardian, 22 September 1932, Page 2

CLAIM FAILS

ENGINE-DRIVER. SEEKS DAMAGE. (Per Press Association — Copyright.) WELLINGTON, Sept. 20. Damages in the form of a petition of right were claimed from the Crown by *Thomas Stewart, engine-driver, of Petone, in an action heard before his Honour Mr Justice MacGregor in tine Supreme Court. The case was the outcome of an accident to Stewbrt, 'who injured his left hand while driving .a. traction engine for the Railway Deportment at Thorndou on August 19, 1931. Judgment was given for tlie respondent. In his 'petition, Stewart stated that in the. course of his duty it was necessary for him from time to time to feel the brass bearings of the engine. While he Was doing this his left hand became entangled in the gearing cogs, as a result of whioii his left forearm was amputated. It Was alleged by the suppliant that the accident wn.s due to negligence on the part of the Railway Department in that the cogs were not covered or otherwise safeguarded. He sought special damages amounting to £224 2s 6d and general damages amounting to £ISOO. The Solicitor-General’ s plea denied negligence. It was alleged that the accident was due to. the suppliant’s owh negligence in not stopping the engine before feeling the bearings. As a further defence it was pleaded that if the department had been negligent, which Was denied, the suppliant was guilty of contributory negligence in the . two respects alleged. , In his giving his deoision, his Honour said, assuming negligence had been proved in that the cogwheel had not been adequately protected the question was whether that negligence was the cause of the accident or whether it was due to the carelessness of the suppliant. From the evidence and a personal inspection of the machine he was satisfied that the real cause was the suppliant’s own action. The real precise cause of the action was clearly the suppliant’s own reckless folly in stretching, forward as he did. He. was clearly the author of his own wrong. Judgment would he for the respondent. Costs would he according to scale with witnesses’ ex,penI ses and disbursements to be fixed by I the registrar. ■ *