ACCIDENT SEQUEL

Waikato Times, Volume 128, Issue 21362, 5 March 1941, Page 7

ACCIDENT SEQUEL

WORKER LOSES ARM | I ~" i NEGLIGENCE ALLEGED j SUPREME COURT ACTION j Further evidence for the plaintiff j was heard yesterday in the Supreme j Court in Hamilton, when Harold | Swindells (Mr W. J. King) sued the i New Zealand Soluble Slags Limited (Mr A. M. Gould and Mr E. J. V. Dyson) for £2BB 19s special damages and £3OOO general damages. The action arose out of an accident on June 3 last, when plaintiff lost his left arm while working in the employ of the defendant company, at Huntly. It was alleged by Mr W. J. King that the company had been negligent in failing to ensure protection against unguarded machinery, a jib head key attached to a pinion, in which Swindells had caught his arm. The witnesses called by the plaintiff were Ernest Alfred Humberstone. an employee of Soluble Slags Limited’s factory at Huntly, who described the situation of the machinery; Charles James McLean, inspector of machinery, who visited the works on May 31, and who found several matters requiring attention; Eben Lambert Wilson. assistant house surgeon at the Waikato Hospital. who outlined the nature of plaintiff’s injuries. and Ralph Fergus Cahill, a machinist, who gave technical evidence concerning the lay-out of the machinery. Evidence For Defence Outlining the case'for the defence, Mr A. M. Gould said it was a pity that the simple issues of the case were clouded by the sharp conflict of the evidence, which could hardly be attributed to negligence or accident. Defending counsel claimed that the accident was caused by plaintiff’s own negilence in reaching his arm through the guard. The fact that the inspector had not closed down the machinery following the inspection showed that the risk was not so pointed as it would have been if the pinion were unguarded. Manager’s Evidence John Ambrose Heskett, manager of defendant company, metallurgical engineer, described the lay-out of the works and the equipment. The pedestal was reconstructed last Easter, and even up to a week before the accident he saw the bolts and other apparatus in proper place, the men were familiar with it. When plaintiff first approached him for work, witness was assured he was experienced in machinery, and plaintiff was told he would probably be given employment as a process operator. Plaintiff did not seem keen to take the job at the Krupp mill, but later accepted. Swindells was taken to Humberstone, who was told to give him the necessary instruction for a week. Witness did not allow any new men to go alone to grease the capping. Witness now knew that Swindells claimed he was alone. He told Swindells to take instruction from Humberstone. The men should go between the wall and the countershaft, from the gantry. That was the former practice, but new employees had adopted new methods—contrary to his instructions. When witness arrived at the scene of the accident he saw some splintered timber which he took to be the .guard rail, but the top rail remained intact. Swindells’ clothes had been stripped off him and his left arm tom almost off. When witness returned from telephoning for a doctor Swindells was lying on a stretcher, and a doctor amputated the crushed limb before his removal in an ambulance. Afterwards he noticed that some workmen had dismantled part of the guard rails round the countershaft drive and over the cog and pinion. Before restarting the plant it was imperative to renew the guard rails, and it was decided to completely house the whole running section. Unit Made Fool-proof Cross-examined, witness said all points of possible danger should be guarded. The quard was definitely in position on the day of the accident. The sketch supplied in his report to the inspector of machinery was incorrect, but the written report covered the omission. If the man on duty had not been shown the round-about-way to reach a position to grease the caps he would almost certainly take the easy way, even if it were more dangerous. The accident seemed to him to have been caused by Swindells’ blazer, hanging loosely, coming in contact with the jib. and being drawn slowly to the shaft. ; Swindells’ hand must have gone into ' the pinion from underneath. His j clothes were entwined with the jib—i head key. If the guard had not i been in position, more than the man’s i arm would have gone through. On I the day of the accident there was j adequate guarding. The key and iib | were outside the guard rail. The ; whole of the unit had since been ~ boxed in. and “is foolproof.” Every j time the inspector called there were j requisitions. i His Honour remarked that probj ably every factory in New Zealand ! had had the experience of being required by the inspector to effect cer- ! tain improvements, following each of I his visits. ’ Re-examined.—The works covered about acres. At the time of the accident he had not received the inspector’s written notice to effect improvements. To His Honour.—Wearing of loose clothing was not encouraged at the works. Many of the men “strip to the buff.” Swindells was not doing manual labour, and felt the cold, so donned his blazer. Witness did not know Swindells was so attired.