Harbour Board Must Pay £985 Damages

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 318, 31 March 1928, Page 11

Harbour Board Must Pay £985 Damages

WATERSIDERS’ INJURIES THIRD CLAIM SUCCEEDS Litigation which commenced in August of last year closed at 10.15 last evening when the special jury awarded two watersidei workers a total of £985 damages against the Auckland .Harbour Board, for injuries received through being struck by a bale of goods which fell from a chute while a vessel was being unloaded at the Prince’s Wharf. Frederick Hoy and Robert Lee Bennett (Mr. O’Regan and Mr. Sullivan), sued J. E. Anderson and W. E. Webster, carrying agents, in August, 1927, for £I,OOO damages, but the jury disagreed. A second trial was heard in November of that year when the jury found for the defendants, and this third claim was made against the Harbour Board. The jury found that the defendant had been negligent after over four hours’ deliberation, and awarded Bennett £494 2s, and Hoy £491 6s 6d. The accident occurred on the Prince's Wharf, the same bale of goods striking the two men in succession. The case commenced on Wednesday and about 30 witnesses were called in the three days of hearing. In his address to the jury, Mr. R. McVeagh, for the defendant, said that the victims of the accident had benefited considerably under the provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act. which gave compensation to the extent of two-thirds of the earnings for total incapacity. The substantial question for the jury was whether the Harbour Board had been guilty of negligence. He held that the plaintiffs had placed themselves in a position of danger and had made no sign of protest. In the opinion of Mr. O’Regan, the question could be solved by adding to the height of the sides of the chute. In the rush and bustle of work it was not reasonable to expect the men to put the bales down the chute with artistic His Honour said that the fact that the men had received benefits under the Workers’ Compensation Act did not have any bearing on the question. It had been admitted by Hoy and Bennett that they knew the chute to be unsafeIf the men were entitled to damages they were also entitled to hospital expenses. Nine issues were submitted to the jury, which retired at 5.56 p.m. By ten to two the jury found that the accident was due to the negligence of the Harbour Board, and by eleven to one that the negligence was in not providing sufficient protection to prevent goods going over the side of the chute and not providing sufficient super- : vision over the class of goods going down the chute. By nine to three the jury agreed that the board knew the chute was unsafe. It also found that the plaintiffs were not guilty of contributory negligence.