fourth edition

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 411, 20 July 1928, Page 13

fourth edition

Harbour Board is Proved Negligent

“UNSAFE CHUTES"

DAMAGES for stevedores

Damages amounting to £494 2s f or Robert L. Bennett, and £491 6s 6d for Frederick Hoy, against the Auckland Harbour Board have been awarded in the Supreme Court by Mr. Justice Blair. Plaintiffs received injuries on the Prince's Wharf, and it was found that the board was negligent in having unsafe chutes. Hoy and Bennett were injured on March 27, 1927, when they were working as stevedores. Cargo came over the side of a chute provided by the board. •‘1 do not think the defendants have established tho right to a new trial,” .said his Honour. “Plaintiffs are entitled to the damages assessed by the j ur y with costs on the highest scale. They arc entitled to seven and a-half guineas in each case for costs on the motion for judgment and new trial. Credit is to be given for worked compensation, which will be payable by tho board to the plaintiffs’ employers, the Union Steam Ship Company. THE BOARD’S POSITION "It is necessary to make plain the position of the board with regard to the user of its wharfs and conveniences. It is tho port authority of Auckland and follows a different practice in regard to cargo from that in use elsewhere in New Zealand. The discharging of cargo is left entirely to the ships, and all stevedores employed are either employees of the ships or of stevedoring firms. Nor does the board concern itself with delivering cargo from the wharf sheds to consignees. For an inclusive charge the facilities are provided. "The jury found that the board was negligent in not providing sufficient protection to prevent goods from going over the side and that plaintiffs admitted that they knew the chute was unsafe. SIMILAR HAPPENINGS "There was evidence that to the knowledge c»f board officials, bales had fallen over the sides of similar chutes on another of the board’s wharves. At tho time the occurrence was considered attributable to want of care on tho part of workmen putting cargo on the chute. The jury would be entitled to take the view that want of care by the workmen should be provided against. EXPERTS’ EVIDENCE “There was considerable evidence by experts that the sides were too low. The jury was entitled to accept this evidence.” Messrs. O’Kegan and Sullivan represented the plaintiffs, and Mr. McVeagh appeared for the board.