INJURED MEN PRESS CLAIM FOR DAMAGES

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 315, 28 March 1928, Page 15

INJURED MEN PRESS CLAIM FOR DAMAGES

TWO ACTIONS HAVING FAILED, WATERSIDERS SUE HARBOUR BOARD The unusual circumstance of a claim for damages failing on two occasions and the substitution of the defendants in order to bring a third action was. brought forward in the Supreme Court before Mr. Justice Blair and a special jury of 12 this morning. Two claims for £SOO damages, each against the Auckland Harbour Board, were brought by Robert Lee Bennett and Frederick Hoy, waterside workers, for injuries received through being struck by a bale of goods which fell from a chute at the Prince’s Wharf while tlie plaintiffs were working for the Union Steam Ship Company. The first action was brought by Bennett and Hoy against J. E. Anderson and W. E. Webster, trading as W. E. Anderson, carrying and forwarding agents, for the same damages, on August 9 and 10 last, but the jury disagreed. At the second trial on November 3 and 4, the jury found for the defendants with costs. The present action cited the Harbour Board as defendants and dropped the action against the previous defendants. Mr. P J. O’Regan and Mr. J. J. Sullivan appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. R. McVeagh for the defendants. Mr. O’Regan said that the accident occurred on March 21, 1927, on the Prince’s Wharf. Bennett and Hoy were assisting to unload the Wingatui at the time. They had to pass beneath a chute down which bales were being sent from the ship. A bale fell off the shute striking first one plaintiff and then the other. Both suffered severe head and neck injuries and had been off w'ork since the date of the accident. It would be alleged that the accident was due to the unsafe nature of the chute owing to the low sides which gave no protection. The two men would be unable to work for a year following the accident. The defence is a denial that the chute was unsafe, and an assertion that the two men were fit for work and had been for some time. Dr. E. H. Mi Isom, called by the defence, stated that the plaintiffs would fully recover. The court adjourned at this stage to enable the jury to visit the scene of the accident.