The Walkure

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LVI, Issue 89, 10 September 1914, Page 3

The Walkure

•ACTION' FOR DAMAGES. FfTZPATRICK v. THE MASTERS AND OWNERS. This was an action for damages claimed by William Henry Fitzpatriek against Newton King, and the owners and master of the a.s. Walkure. Mr Weston for plaintiff, Mr Hutehen for Newton King, and Mr A. Blair (Wellington) for the owners and master of the Walkure. The following jury was empanelled:— Messrs R. Pike (foreman), W. 0. Ford, Jas. Hawkins, L. F. .Mace, T. B. Salter, IH. Sinclair, F. Sampson, J. H. Bagley, A. Young. D. L. Humphries, G. Cosbrook, and V. Asher. As a preliminary, Mr Weston asked permission to strike out Mr Newton King as one of the parties to the defence. He stated that when action was taken there was a probability of the Walkure .leaving the Dominion at an early date, and there was some doubt as to who had employed plaintiff on the ship, so that it was deemed advisable to sue both Mr King and the master and owners of the ship, but it was subsequently arranged with Mr Hutehen that Mr. Kino should not file any defence.. Mr King had, however, to prepare for trial so that he might be liable for costs, but he suggested that I that point could stand over until iffter I trial of the action. i Afr Hutehen, intimfated he waa willing | to leave the question to His Honor to decide in ehalibers. I

Leave was then given to strike out Mr, Newton King as a defendant, on the terms mentioned by Council. Mr Weston, in opening the case for the plaintiff, said that the statement of claim alleged that the plaintiff was employed as hatehman on the Walkure, and was struck by a sling whereby his leg was struck and plaintiff sustained a 6cvcre shook, it being alleged that the yard arm derrick was not made safe fast to the ship's side, it being fastened only by a single rope guide which it was alleged wa'i not of sufficient strength, thus causing the accident. He therefore claimed £27 )Ss for medical attendance, nursing, etc., £4B for loss of wages, and £5Ol for general damages. Counsel proceeded to fully explain the various equipment used on the ship for unloading operations, and submitted a number of the photographs to enable the jury to get an idea of how the accident happened. He also detailed what steps were taken to improve the gear after the accident, pointing out that while the institution of improvements was no proof of negligence, yet it indicated that improvements were necessary. Plaintiff' was an elderly man of a somewhat neurotic tendency, so that the effect of such an accident on a man of that nature might be very serious, but that would be for the jury to decide. Freil Watson, employed by Mr Newton King, who was agent for the Shaw. Sa.vill Co., identified a copy of the charter party of the Walkure, which he had read. 'lie made all arrangements foi labor on the ship before her arrival. These arrangements were made with ifr. Groombridge, and the captain of the vessel eventually agreed thereto—to unload by day labor. Witness had nothing to do "with the unloading, but was uii the wharf looking after the interests of the cargo. Witness paid the men, (iifloml)ridgi' , niaking out the pay-sheets. Witness paid for the labor, the money being deducted from what was due to the ship. Win. Groombridge, wharf foreman for the Union S.S. Co., stated that plaintiff was one ot the men employed on the Walkure. He was a trustworthy man. He asked the mate for four winehnien, but the male wanted to work a Hying derrick to save one man. Eventually witness agreed to supply the yardarm men and the ship to supply the winchmen amidships. There were no slings aboard. .Nothing else was said about the ship's gear. As foreman, witness was not responsible for the ship's gear. Plaintiff was hatehman. Was on the wharf when the accident happened. Heard something bang, and saw the derrick Hying back. Went on hoard and saw wiiat had happened. Saw the guyrope had carried away. Subsequently the guy in a similar position at No; 3 hatch carried away, but no one was hurt. Witness saw the mate and told him he had better leave off block anil tackle guys he had on as preventer gu;, s, so that if,the block and tackle carried away the. preventer guys Would hold. All work was discontinued till that course was adopted. The same evening he suggested to the mate to fasten the two derricks together, as suggested by the chid' engineer of the Rarawa. Sacking was put round the fall and the preventer guy to prevent the rope being injured by friction. Witness kept tin eye on the guys and noticed that chilling gear was dialing at the guys. The derricks were too short to reach the trucks. This was remedied by lowering the derricks. Plaintiff's wages while Working [ \vi re Is !)d per hour.

To Mr. lllair: Had boon on (ho wharf for 13 or 1f years. I'laintili liad boon working there for about live yours. Tile I average, earnings of men on the wharf would bo from .CI to C2 His. Would I not like to sav whothor if tlio guy rope had In—ll linnly fasti nod lo the ringbolt on the rail tlio accident would have Impelled, but it could not have chafed on the rail. Uo-oxaminod: There wore no half hiteh"s on tin- guy ropes. Hall hitches tightod up so that they took a long time to undo. Win. Hour,- Fitzpatriek. the plaintiff, stated that he was a wharf laborer in charge of Xo. 2 hatch oil the Walknre. Some time after starting work it was iieces,iiry to have th» derrick altered, as it did not reach out far enough to reach the trucks. The after guys were slackened and the forward guys loosened. There was a single guy rope - not a new one -which came through the eyo-boit fa-toned 1,) the side of 'the ship. The accident happened about ha'f an hour j after starting work. Had jjieat dillii cultv in g"tting the wire to run through the yard-arm block. Mr. (Iroonib: idgo's attcution was drawn to it. and lo'd the mate it would have to be altered. At the time of the accident lie was picking up the empty slings and throwing them down lelow.' lie heard a or,, and next moment was cin-hcd again-t the hatch by a sling of cargo that had j;i-t gone out over the wharf. lie was in the hospital for nearly t.-n weeks. The ho.-pital bill was cm in,. aiid_ there were other medical expenses. For ordinary cargo the pay was Is Si an hour. His average weekly earning- amounted to between Cli and CI a week. lie had a horse and dray which lie somtimes u-ed. Sometime- he worked at his forge, as lie was a blacksmith by trade. He was liO yours of age; was married, and had six children, the oldest being 2<t and the youiige-t four. Overtime pav was 2- 2d from ."> to ID p.m.. after that 2s :iil »er hour. For coal they received 2s Xd per hour. There, was a fair amount of overtime. To 'Mr. I'.lair: Had been working about the wharf for 111 or 12 years. There was no extra pay for being hatchman. The men in tile truck asked to

have the boom brought out further, and this was done by witness and others. After altering the boom the guy was left as before, fastened to the cleat without any half-hitch to the eye-bolt. After two or three more slings 'had been worked the boom was again pulled forward and lowered, it being then very horizontal.

' John K. Askwith, wharf laborer, gave corroborative evidence as to the unloading equipment and the alterations to the boom. The guy rope was very dirty and appeared to have been in store a long while, but when examining it after the accident the inside appeared new. He noticed that the wire rope of the winch was worn and complained about it, a new one being put in at dinnertime. The guy rope at No. 1 hatch" was new, but it was chafed. To Mr. Blair: After each of the alterI ations of the boom the chafing of the | rope would be in a different place. | The Court adjourned at this stage. I The Court resumed at 2 p.m. Geo. Tickner said he was working at No. 3 hatch. He described how the J gear was fixed when he went to work, I stating that he had to alter the fastening of the guy rope. About half-an-hour after starting work the rope broke about 3ft above the eye-bolt. It 'had chafed in the ring-bolt. The guy rope cut on the railing. After the gear started wearing he told the second officer that he could not go on with the guy rope as it was, and bloek-and-taekle were put ont, the second mate supervising. The old guy rope was used as a protector. None of the crew assisted at this work. No supervision of the, unloading was given by the ship's officer at witness' hatch. The rope that broke was a new one. Next morning there was a preventer on two derricks and chafing gear on the guys. W. L. I'erry said he was on the port winch of No. 1 hat;h, facing the bow. He heard a cry, and on rushing round found plaintiff against the combing with the bags of slag pressing' against him. The second mate looked on. lie inspected the guy rope, which be considered was an old one. The break was due to chafing on the rail. There was always a certain amount of play on the yard-arm derrick. The guy rope at No. 1 hatch was new. He found it chafed on the rail and on the eye-bo!t, about a quarter through. lie made a complaint about the gear, and asked for a block and tackle (rope produced and identified as belonging to No. 1 hatch). The rope snapped when the derrick was being raised higher. The guy rope at No. 2 hatch was slightly better on the inside than the rope produced. To Mr. Blair: The gear at his hatch had to be put in order before work was commenced. The rope produced broke with a straight pull. Joseph Ridhind, another wharf laborer, gave confirmatory evidence. Captain Norbury said his boat, the Rarawa, was at Moturoa on the day of the aeeident. He looked at the gear on the Walkure. The arrangement of the guy rope struck 'him as singula*. He considered it was to remain there till permanent tackle was put up. The guy rope at No. 2 was brought down from the pennant and passed through an eye-bolt. He considered the rope would chafe. Lowering the yard-arm would increase the strain on the rope. If the eye-bolt were for'ard of the cleat the risk' of chafing would be increased, lie. did not consider tin l method of rigging the guy rope was safe and proper. To Mr. Blair: The breaking strain of the guy rope would be between two and three tons.

lie-examined: The strain on tlie rop'i depended on how,, the winches wore worked. Had never'previously seen u derrick rigged with a single lint-' to steady it. Captain Monro, assistant secretary and wharfinwr to tlie Wellington Harbor ]!oard, said lie had ft I years' experi- . enoe of ships. He saw the N'alkure at •' Wellington, lie asked the mute to describe how the accident occurred at Xew ' I'lyinouth, and he stated that prior to the discharge of the ship the crew drove the rope, through the eye-bolt of the rail and made it fast to the cleat. Tli'B place where the rope hud come into contact with the rail had the. paint rubbed oil'. I'arning the gear fastened to the ship whib'at sea deteriorated the ropes, which were generally stowed away for protection. On a' turret ship there would be more sprav on deck lluin in other ships. The Walkurc, in common with many foreign ships, seemed to bo neglected." lie formed tlie idea that nothing was taken off the booms as a rule, the gear being left standing until they got to another port. He considered the j eve-bolt on the rail was not intended for a single rope, but lor a block and tackle. He would say it wan highly dan"eroiis as far as the men working the "boats were concermd. The ropes <m the bout presented much tlie same appearance as the rope in Court. Wet took the life out of a flax rope. A rope that was used at a strain at right aivdcs would feel the strain twice as much as in a straight pull. Lowering the boom wouhl increase Hi" strain. All the derricks oil the turret ships at Wellington seemed too short, and the hydraulic cranes had to lie used for unloading, lu a block and tackle there wci- Tour parts taking an equal strain a"aiust one in a single rope: moreover, tlie boom could be held rigid, thus lessening the .jerky moti'ui. He thought the crew wciv a =lip*h»d lot. To Mr. lilair: His opinion of Herman v.-els was formed before Hie war. Ti'c-e were <n.od and bad i-.n-Jish-built U,nU, but they were usually well found. Was not aware that turret boats were built on the Tyne and that they were patents. . ~ His Honor: That docs not matter. They keep atloat, and that is the main thing. . ~,,., . \}y Walker described plaintd! s injuries, stating that he was. wh»n admitted to th" hospital sult'eiing from severe shr-d- as wcdl us a simple fracture ot |, (ll 'l, |,„nes of the ri'jht leg, and other injuries. His urogiT-s was slow, ow.ng to abdominal troubles. At present he was totally disabled .and it would probably be six months b-forc be could unj dertake light work. There ivould pro- ' Inbl- be a pcrniannit partial disable- | meii't. the right leg not being lik< I.Y to be ! restored to its former condition. . fle. 1 results wou'il !>•• more severe and tar--1 reaehiii'-- than in a much younger man. S Mr. Weston intimated iliat Mr._ is:a.r •-..limited that the' requisite -notice of ! neiion under the Workers' Uuipcnsaj t',,,,1 Act had been given. ! Addressing the yr.- : . .Mr. \l-!ou i i.- ! tended that plaintiff had made out his lease of gross negligence against the ,le- •' fendants. The workers on tlie snip ! were entitled to <'V»-t >•'» </'" f ll . 1 " 1 was reliable. Thai ties v,as not. s.. had ' 1,,,,, proved by the accident lotheplaini.iir. and tl>, narrow -.-ei-la- «l 1 .ck.u* ! 1| ( . Mimnittod Ilea, t'ue 1-ast ! could do was to see that plaintii was : „„ worse oil' than if lie hud not met • with the accident, and lie hoped the jury 1 would treat plaiatili lan'iy in the nue ! trr of damages. Mr Blair siig-e-ted to the jury that jthov should give fair and _ rcasonab' 1 ,„mpensMtion for the injuries he sniffed H a punitive verdict w-re given it might prevent shipping companies from working the. port of Moturoa. He ' laimed that the wharf workers had p oduced the very mischief ol which

I they complained, therefore they were just as much to blame as careless Germans. That might be an answer to the claim, but certainly it should influence, the jury in giving only between £3 and £i a week. Nine months' complete disablement was the maximum, and he suggested that nine months' pay, together with the hospital and medical expenses, £2-2 13s; and over and above that, anv reasonable sum for lis siifl'eringa anil partial disablement would be a fair basis for damages.

SHis Honor said it was a question of damages not only for the loss of money, but for the injuries whereby plaintiff was more or less permanently damaged. Itwas for the jury to consider what was fair under the circumstances. They must make the best estimate they could after bearing in mind that it was by no means certain plaintiff would bo abic to return to work in nine months' tiane. After an absence of about half-an-hour the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff with £1,50 damages, and £22 I3s for expenses, and judgment was entered up accordingly, with costs as per scale, including the costs of examination of witnesses at Wellington. After hearing Mr Hutehen on the question of costs in relation to discontinuing the action against Mr Newton King, His Honor fixed the,amount at £lO 10s. the sum suggested by Mr Hut- 1 ehen. i