I couldn't find an answer to the question posed at the end of my last post as to whether the Flynns recieved any compensation. However, the following three articles concerning the Coroners enquiry and the later Compensation Court Proceedings are of interest. It is interesting to note that Victoria was one of the last of the British Colonies to enact a Workers Compensation Act which theey did in1914. I wonder how much this case impacted on that decision.
Coroners Enquiry 28 February to 12 March 1913
The Argus, Wednesday 12 March 1913
YARRA JUNCTION DISASTER.
CORONER'S INQUIRY CONCLUDED.
VERDICT OF MISADVENTURE
The concluding stage of the inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the death of Francis Flynn, a
widower, aged 47 years, who, with Michael Curtain, was killed in the accident which
occurred at Yarra Junction, on the private tramway owned by the Victoria Powell
Wood Process Ltd., on February 25, was reached yesterday when the jury returned
a verdict of death by misadventure. The
inquiry occupied three days. Mr J. W. K.
Freeman attended to assist the coroner; Mr C.J. M’Farlane appeared on behalf of
the Victoria Powell Process Ltd., enginedriver (H.F. White), guard (G Wardley),
and the engineer in charge (Mr. G. F. O’Connor).
Maurice Edwin Kernot, chief engineer of the construction branch of
Victorian Railways, said:- The construction of the track, so far as it is
advanced, is suitable to the rolling stock used upon it. I saw the four chain curve, and I am of the
opinion that the speed should be limited there.
The crossing of two sets of rails at the curve is not good, and the
curve should be moved to another position.
If maintained in proper order the brakes used on the truck should be
sufficient. To keep the brakes in good order a periodical overhaul and a daily
inspection should be made. The brakes I
examined were much damaged by the accident, and it would be difficult to tell
in what condition they were before the accident. Assuming the brakes were in good order, and
also they were applied with the pressure a man can exercise with his foot, they
should have held the trucks on the incline.
Taking the guards weight at 10st. 9lb., the pressure he could exert on
the brakes would be sufficient to hold the train. Under the circumstances that prevailed just
prior to the accident a driver could not be sure of stopping his engine within
a couple of inches of a specified spot.
When easing up slowly it is quite possible for the engine buffer to
exercise considerable pressure without the driver noticing it because the
buffer is worked on a spring. The
accident might have been caused by a combination of causes (1) pressure from
the engine: (2) failure of the chocks to serve its purpose: and (3) by the
brakes not having been properly applied.
Henry Payne, professor of engineering at the University of
Melbourne said: I agree with the
evidence given by Mr. Kernot. I went
over the line from the two mile point to the spot where the accident occurred. From my inspection I have arrived at the
conclusion that the engineering work is being carried out in a very
satisfactory manner. The engineer in
charge (Mr. O’Connor) appears to me to be fully qualified. The average grading between the four chain
curve and the two mile point is one in 59.
The curves are in all cases of a satisfactory super-elevation, and allow
an ample margin of safety under ordinary conditions.
Mr Freeman: We take it that
had these brakes properly applied these trucks would not have moved backwards?
– If the brakes were properly braked they should not have moved.
Do you consider inspection of the brakes necessary? – Yes.
Inspection should be made by an engineer in charge,
Continuing, witness detailed the experiments w which were carried
out at Yarra Junction on Friday, when the trucks loaded similarly to those
which bolted on February 25 were held on the grade of 1 in 40 after being
uncoupled from the engine.
Mr Freeman – Would hand pressure on the brake be sufficient to
stop the trucks?
To the Coroner: All the
brakes should have been put down when the train was divided.
George Francis O’Connor, managing engineer for the Victoria Powell
Wood process Company stated: - The guard has charge of the train, and his
instructions direct him to examine the brakes and trucks. Almost always when I went to the head of the
road I examined and tested the brakes..
Such visits were made by me at least twice a week.
To Mr. M’Farlane: - The total weight of the train was 74 tons
16cwt., and the part that got away weighed 49 tons 11cwt. The trucks are the same as those used by the
Western Australian Government, except that they have been reduced from a 3ft.
6in. to a 3ft. gauge, while the brake power was doubled.
After Mr. M’Farlane had addressed the jury, Mr. Freeman stated
that a verdict of manslaughter could not be returned unless there was evidence
of gross negligence. A mere error of
judgement would not justify a jury in bringing in such a verdict. The question for them to decide was whether
the guard was guilty of gross negligence.
In summing up, the Coroner remarked: - In dealing with the whole
matter I would ask you to consider carefully whether any person has been guilty
of neglect. When you have made up your
minds on that point you will be able to determine the neglect was so gross as
to make it a crime. It is a question, so
far as the guard is concerned, whether there was any error of judgement. I think you will say that this is a case of
misadventure. We may learn from such
errors to safeguard the line for others who will have to use it in the future.
After a retirement of 45 minutes, the jury unanimously arrived at
the following decision: “We find that
the deceased (Francis Flynn) met his death by misadventure, through an error of
judgement on the part of the guard (Wardley).
We are of the opinion that proper checks should in future carried on
these trucks.
The Compensation Claim
Argus 31 May 1913
BOLTING TRUCKS.
YARRA JUNCTION ACCIDENT.
COMPENSATION CLAIMS.
In the County Court yesterday, before Judge Johnston, an action was commenced in which William Thompson, a former employee of the Victorian Powell Wood Process Ltd., claims the sum of £499 as damages for injuries received owing to the alleged insufficiency or inadequacy of the brakes on railway trucks used by the defendant company in connection with its works at Powell Town. Plaintiff's injuries were alleged to have been sustained on February 25, when six trucks on defendant's railway bolted, as the result of which two men were killed and a number of others injured. Nine claims for compensation were made against the company, one of which was settled out of court for £40, and two others for lesser amounts. The other claimants are David Baldwin, Edward Geoffrey Wardley, John Francis, Smedley, and James Hart, each of whom is suing for £499 and Allen Albert Hodgetts, who claims £249 damages. Defendant company paid into court the following sums in repect to the claims of the respective plaintiffs: - Thompson, £15; Baldwin, £20; Wardley, £35; Smedley, £25; Hart, £75; and Hodgetts, £25. Messrs, Morley and Eager (instructed by Mr. F.E. Bateman) appeared for the plaintiffs, and Messrs Arthur and Dethridge (instructed by Mr. C.J. McFarlane) for the defendants.
As the evidence to be given in each of the six cases was stated to be of a similar nature, Judge Johnston suggested that the cases should be taken together, as a means of saving time and after counsel had conferred on the matter, Mr. McArthur said it had been arranged that Thompson's case
should be taken first, subject to the following conditions: -(1) As to liability of defendants: In connection with the facts of the accident, and the alleged negligence of the company or its servants, the decision in Thompson's case is to govern the other cases and (2) as to any fact personal to
any individual plaintiff which might prevent such plaintiff from taking advantage of relying on defendant's alleged negligence, each case is to stand on its on its own footing.
Mr. Morley, in opening the case, said that on the morning of February 25 Thompson and certain other men loaded up a number of tucks which were to be drawn by an engine from Yarra Junction to Powell Town. About two miles along the line the train was divided, and the engine proceeded to push the four trucks. The brakes were let down on the six trucks left behind and chocks put under the wheels. These trucks ran away, and reached the Gilderoy crossing where they dashed off the line and crashed into a shed, smashing the shed and two trucks. Two of the men were killed and others injured. What plaintiff relied upon was that the brakes had been insufficiently powerful to control the train; that there were only brakes on two wheels of each of the trucks; and that the line being exceptionally hilly, more care should have been taken. It was also contended that the brakes were defective. There was an alternative claim of negligence against the company's engine-driver who, it was alleged, had improperly managed the engine by allowing it to bump the trucks.
Mr. McArthur said the defense was a denial of any defects in the brakes or of any negligence on the part of the company.
Evidence in support of plaintiff's case was given by William Thompson, Denis Lane, James Hart, Allen Albert Hodgetts, and Edward Geoffrey Wardley.
Dr. W.H. James of Warburton stated: I examined plaintiff on February 5. He complained of stiffness in the back, and a pain in the side. He was quite dazed and was flushed about the face. To Mr. Eager: I examined plaintiff's head, and found that there was a slight concussion of the brain. On April 10 I again examined him, and as far as I could see he had practically recovered. He would be able to work as well as ever but it is possible that if he had an attack of rheumatism he would feel the effect of the injuries he had received.
At this stage the hearing of the case was adjourned until this morning.
Argus 31 May 1913
YARRA JUNCTION ACCIDENT.
AN UNWILLING WITNESS.
VERDICT FOR DEFENDANTS.
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION LAW.
A series of actions brought by men injured by an accident on the tramway line of the Victoria Wood Powell Process Co.Ltd., were again before Judge Johnston in the County Court yesterday. The accident happened through several trucks which had been stopped on an incline while the engine pushed others up breaking away, with the result that after running some distance they were thrown off the line. Two workmen on the trucks at the time were killed and a number of others injured. Six cases brought by injured men to recover £400 damages each were before the Court, and the first, brought by William Thompson, a labourer, was taken as a test case as to the liability of the company. Mr. Morley and Mr. E. Ager (instructed by Mr. F. E. Bateman) appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr.McArthur, K.C., and Mr. Dethridge (instructed by Mr. C. J. McFarlane) for the defendant company.
William W. Ward, carpenter, who was called by plaintiff, asked for his expenses before giving evidence.
Mr. Morley.—Will you take the word of
Mr. Bateman. plaintiff's solicitor, that you will be paid?—I would rather have themoney. (Laughter.)
Judge Johnston said that the amount,10/ a day, must be tendered. Mr. Morley tendered two sovereigns to the clerk of the court (Mr. Brown), who,however, declined to hold it, and Mr. Bateman tendered the amount he was stated to be entitled to, to the witness.
Ward.—I want 12/ a day, that is the rate I am getting.
Judge Johnston.—That is all you can get.
Ward proceeded to give evidence as to construction of the trucks, but could not remember having made statements that a periodical inspection was advisable. Mr. Morley asked that witness be treated as a hostile witness, so that he might cross-examine him. Mr. McArthur objected to this course being permitted.
Judge Johnston.—I think I am entitledto look at the demeanour of the witness.
Mr. Morley.—Do you see his attitude?
Mr. Dethridge.—He does not appear to like you. (Laughter.)
Mr. McArthur.—He has his hands in his own pockets. A learned judge has said it is all right, as long as a man's hands are not in anothers pockets.
Judge Johnston.—My impression is that he is trying to withhold the truth. I think Mr. Morely may be allowed to cross-examine him.
Ward, cross-examined by Mr. Morely, said - I told the manger the trucks should be inspected once a week. It was not my duty to adjust the brakes unless I was told to. These trunks had been running for about five weeks. Blake told me on one occasion to tighten the nuts on the trucks. There was no special reference to the brakes.
Cross-examined by Mr. McArthur.- Stamp and Hearse tightened up the nuts. The brakes could easily be readjusted.
Other evidence was given that the brakes were not in good condition at the time of the accident and the plaintiffs case was closed.
Mr Dethbridge asked if there was a case.
Judge Johnson said he should hear case and the defendant had to submit. He couyld not be sure thatthere was a case…….. though looking into the matter there could be……..
Mr. Dethridge. - As to the bump, the utmost the evidence showed was that there was a slight push. There was no suggestion of negligence, even if there was a slight bump in doing what was necessary. The facts intended to show that the accident was due to the guard not braking the train properly. He asked for a nonsuit on the ground that the accident was not due to the negligence of the engine driver.
Mr. Morley.- It was shown that three or four trucks had been pushed along a level section
of the hump …….and evidence was called by the defence to show that the brakes were sufficient and effective.
G. F. O'Connor said: - Wardley, the guard, was supposed to make a daily inspection of the brakes. I tested the brakes on an incline about two days before the accident, and they were effective.
Cross-examined by Mr. Morley.- I was not there to see if the brakes were in good working order on the day of the accident. If they were in good working order and put down hard they would have held the train. I do not think they were all properly applied. I do not think Wardley put the brakes on all the trucks. I would not say the brake was sufficient to hold a train when it had started on that incline.
Judge Johnston.- I do not see how I can find that this accident happened through the defective condition of the brakes. Judge Johnston said he had to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accident was due to insufficient brake power, or because it was improperly applied. The plaintiff had failed to satisfy him on these points. The guard had evidently relied on the chocks proving an insuperable obstacle. It might be thought that he could give judgment against defendants on the ground that the accident was due to the negligence of a servant but counsel would understand that he could not do so in this case. A verdict must be given for the defendant company. So far as he knew, the State of Victoria was the only part of the British dominions in which a Workmen's Compensation Act was not in force. This was a case in which such an act would peculiarly apply. It was not his duty as a judge to express any opinion as to what the law ought to be; nor was he to be taken as doing so. He wished to draw public attention to the matter, with a view to suggesting the advisability of the Legislature seeing whether it should bring in a law on the lines of the law which existed in other parts of His Majesty's dominions.
Mr. Dethridge said he would like to strongly support the general remarks of Judge Johnston. He knew of cases in which great hardship had been done through the absence of legislation, such as the Imperial Parliament had passed long since.
Mr. Morley said he had advocated the passage of a Workmen's Compensation Act frequently from the public platform.
No comments:
Post a Comment