DAMAGES CLAIM

Waikato Times, Volume 128, Issue 21363, 6 March 1941, Page 9

DAMAGES CLAIM

WORKER LOSES ARM VERDICT FOR PLAINTIFF £2788 19/- ALLOWED A decision in favour of plaintiff was recorded yesterday afternoon in the claim for damages in the Supreme Court, Hamilton, in which Harold Swindells (Mr W. J. King) claimed from New Zealand Soluble Slags Ltd. (Mr A. M. Gould and Mr E. J. V. Auckland), £2BB 19s special damages and £3OOO general damages through the loss of his left arm in some machinery while he was employed at defendant firm’s works at Huntly. After a retirement of an hour, the jury awarded plaintiff the special damages claim of £2BB 19s and £2500 general damages. Judgment was entered accordingly. The case was commenced on Monday morning, and the Chief Justice, Sir Michael Myers, presided. Negligence Alleged When the hearing of evidence for the defendant was completed Mr Gould reviewed the evidence and addressed the court on points of law. Mr * «yson followed with a concise summing up, in which he submitted that Swindells had been himself negligent, in that he did not take ordinary reasonable precautions. There was difference of opinion as to the protective measures, and he would raise the point of credibility. Both Swindells and Humberstone had sworn there was no guard on the side of the spur wheel. Humberstone had, in the witness box, changed his statement from that written and signed by him only a few weeks earlier. Turner and other witnesses had sworn there was a guard. Swindells need not nave done any of the work while he was receiving the week’s tuition. Had there been no guard Swindells would almost certainly have suffered more injury than the loss of an arm. The claim for £3OOO was exorbitant, though plaintiff was admittedly entitled to some compensation. Convincing Evidence Mr W. J. King contended that the evidence for plaintiff was reliable and convincing. Employees should be reasonably protected against injury, by the adequate guarding of machinery. After being left to instruct Swindells, Turner was called awa/ by a senior official and Swindells was left to carry on the work on his own, though inexperienced. There would have been no accident if the pinion and spur wheel had been adequately guarded as required by the inspector of machinery. There was no adequate guard, at the time of the accident, over the shaft. On the question of damages, Mr King detailed the items, and contended Swindells was restricted by his injury, to a few occupations. A young man, he would be a loser in this respect for the rest of his life. Question of Compensation His Honour in summing up said that if the jury found for plaintiff, the amount of damages had to be decided. Special damages, £2BB 19s, were not disputed. In assessing general damages, there must be reasonable compensation for plaintiff’s pain and suffering, the effect of his disability on employment and his joy of living. Mr Gould raised the point whether plaintiff, when he greased the mill, was acting within the scope of his duties, and his Honour held that it was reasonable and proper for Swindells to do the greasing. That point had been explained to the jury. The foreman of the jury thanked His Honour for the consideration shown the jury during the hearing of the case.