SERIOUS ACCIDENT ON THE ROSLYN TRAMWAY.
On Saturday night, a very serious accident took place on the new Roslyn Cable Tramway. The following account is condensed from the Dunedin dailies. In order to understand the cause of the accident, it is necessary to reproduce the "Times"' description of the working of the tramway: —
The length of the line is about threequarters of a mile, and up hill the whole way, the grade of the incline ranging from 1 in 8 to 1 in 5. The starting place in Dunedin was at the foot of Rattray street, about 200 yards from Princes street, and at the junction of Rattray with Maclaggan street. The other terminus was on the Town Belt at Roslyn. The direct motive power was an endless travelling wire rope, driven by an engine at the top of the incline. The track, which followed Rattray street up to the Salutation Hotel, had one considerable curve in it, viz., at the junction of Smith street, between the High School and new Catholic site. The wire rope travelled in a channel two feet below the ground, and the cars were fastened to this rope by "grippers" — that is from the centre of the car a bar went down to the rope with two "jaws" on it, one "jaw" to catch the rope coming down, the other the rope going up. The rope travelled at the rate of five and a-half miles an hour. To start the car, a screw, worked by a man in the body of the car, made the gripper catch, and no more was needed. To stop it at any point desired, the hold of the gripper was first relaxed. If nothing else were done the car, as may be imagined, would very quickly run back to the foot of the hill (which, as will appear, was precisely the reason of the accident). To maintain it in a position on the line, therefore a "brake" came into play. It was of the kind known as a "slipper" brake. It did not act on the wheels, as brakes commonly do, but on the rails. Simply stated, a piece of wood about two feet in length, and the width of the rail, was by a great pressure screwed down on each rail, and thus bore the weight of the car. So heavy was the pressure that the wheels would be almost entirely lifted from the rails and a car so held could scarcely have been pulled along by a couple of horses. It is now necessary to explain the construction of the part of the "gripper" we have termed the "jaw." Suppose a couple of hooks lying one on top of another, with a paralled groove in the cover of each to admit of their holding a wire rope between them. When the car was at a stand still the hooks would be considerably apart; when it was running they would be screwed up together till almost touching — at any rate till the rope was firmly clutched. This may serve to give an idea of what the "jaws" were except, of course, instead of hooks they were iron plates. It will be observed too, that with a rope always travelling, and therefore with a swaying motion to a slight extent, there might be a difficulty in getting the rope fairly in the groove between the plates. It might be in at one end and out at the other, so that in effect it would be in no safer position than if between two plain plates. This indeed, may almost be characterised as a defect in the "jaws." Whether it could be remedied or not we cannot say; perhaps not; but it certainly was to this cause — namely that a proper grip within the groove was not taken of the rope — that the accident of Saturday night is in the first place attributable.
The chief interest in this accident centres in Peter Hannah who was driver on the tramway when the accident happened. From the "Morning Herald" we clip the subjoined clear and at the same time condensed account of the accident: — Unfortunately, however, on Saturday night, it appears that at the moment when the brake should have been applied, it was screwed the wrong way, and the carriage became unmanageable. Control of the carriage was lost at the points near the corner of Smith street. In a moment it could be heard, with a whirring bumping motion, tearing along the rails down Rattray street. People hearing the noise knew at once that an accident of some sort was occurring, and gathered up speedily in Rattray street. Those in the carriage soon realised the seriousness of their danger, and some of them jumped out and were badly hurt. The carriage shot down Rattray street with fearful velocity; the gripper cut through five feet of a surface of four-inch planks, and the carriage then slued round and was thrown on its side with great force. Nearly the whole of the glass was smashed, and the occupants were cut, bruised, covered with blood, and many of them rendered insensible by the force of the concussion, but in general those who jumped out received the worst injuries. The sufferers were at once taken to the Shamrock and Crown Hotels, surgical assistance was summoned, and soon Drs Borrows, Brown, Fergusson, De Zouche, Murphy, and Macdonald were in attendance. The folio wing is a list of the sufferers by the accident: —
Andrew Thomson, suffering from cerebral irritation; fracture of right collarbone and two ribs.
Thomas Spears, abrasion of knees and left arm, and slight scalp wound; contusion of forehead.
John Conway, contusion of left knee.
William Stewart, abrasion and contusion of knees; contusion of right elbows.
Herbert Liggins, scalp wound and bruises.
Thomas Liggins, wrench of ankle joint wound, contusions, and bruises on legs.
John Strang, slight wounds on left ear; abrasion of face and scalp.
These comprised the whole of the passengers as far as is known. One man named Henry Harvey is in the Hospital, but his statement that he was in the car is not believed. The police throw doubts upon it. The employee were: —
Peter Hannah, contusion of right leg.
James Forsyth, abrasion of scalp and wrist.
Erasmus Johnson and David Todd were unhurt.
Thomas Garrett, saddler, picked up in a dying state, being terribly injured about the head, and not expected to survive. His case was given up as utterly hopeless on Saturday night, but the medical gentleman attending him thinks there are some faint hopes of his recovery. He continued insensible up to Sunday night, and the full extent of his injuries are not known.
(From last night's Star.)
Mr Duncan, secretary to the Company, is of opinion that the accident is attributable to the brake not being put on. The car has only been running for a week. It was tested on the steepest grade on the line by the Government engineers, and was found to answer the test satisfactorily.
Peter Hannah, who holds the position of superintendent of the line, and is to a great extent responsible for the driving of the cars, has been in the company's employ since the line opened. On being interviewed by our reporter this morning, he stated that in consequence of the morning papers having given a garbled account of the matter, he declined to furnish any statement bearing on the matter until an inquiry was held. On being pressed, however, as to whether he desired it to be stated that he absolutely declined to make any explanation of the occurrence, he became sufficiently communicative to inform us that on nearing the High School he lost the rope, and the brake not acting, the car became unmanageable. He is positive as to having applied the brake, though this statement is contradicted, and it is more probable that he lost his head. -Bruce Herald, 26/4/1881.
Nothing has yet been decided upon with regard to an inquiry into the Roslyn tramway accident. Mr Blair, chief engineer, is at present out of town, and is not expected to return before the middle of next week. He is inspecting engineer for the Government, and would probably have taken some steps in the matter had he been here. The directors of the Company have telegraphed to the Government courting full inquiry. Our readers will be glad to learn that the condition of the young man Thomas Garrett is more hopeful. During yesterday he showed signer of returning consciousness, and Dr Brown now sees less reason to despair of his recovery. At 2 o'clock this morning, however, he was still unconscious. -Otago Daily Times, 28/4/1881.
Some definite hopes are now entertained as to the ultimate recovery of Thomas Garrett. On inquiry at the Hospital to-day we leaned that he is still progressing favorably, The other sufferers by the accident are progressing favorably, though we are informed that Mr Herbert Liggins’s injuries are more serious than was at first expected. The Company have not yet received any communication from the Government in reply to their request that an inquiry into the accident may be held. -Evening Star, 28/4/1881.
There is still a alight improvement to be recorded in the condition off Thomas Garrett. He is believed to have heard what was said to him at times yesterday. -Otago Daily Times, 29/4/1881.
During Thursday night Thomas Garrett took an unfavourable turn, and yesterday morning his life was despaired of. Towards evening however, he improved a little. He still remains unconscious and in a doubtful state. -Otago Daily Times, 30/4/1881.
Thomas Garrett, the chief sufferer by the Roslyn tram accident, has taken another favorable turn, and strong hopes are now entertained of his recovery. -Evening Star, 4/5/1881.
THE TRAMWAY ACCIDENT.
Thomas Garrett, who was injured at the Roslyn tramway accident, died last night. -Manawatu Times, 7/5/1881.
The funeral of Thomas Garrett, the victim of the Roslyn tram accident, took place on Sunday and was largely attended. The inquest is being continued to-day at the Shamrock Hotel, so that jurors can inspect the scene of accident and working of the line. -Cromwell Argus, 10/5/1881.
DUNEDIN, Monday. The inquest on Garrett, who died from injuries received at the Roslyn Tram accident, was continued to-day. The relatives of the deceased, the conductor of the car (Peter Hannah), and the company were represented by lawyers. Mr. Denniston having objected to the Coroner's way of taking the evidence down, provoked the following reply from the Coroner: — "I by no means underrate the value of lawyers' services, but at the same time I am convinced we are competent to make a full inquiry without legal assistance, and on that principle I intend to act." The inquest will not probably conclude tonight. -NZ Herald, 10/5/1881.
A verdict of manslaughter was recorded against the conductor of the Roslyn tram car on which the accident lately happened. -Westport Times, 13/5/1881.
The Grand Jury threw out the bill against Peter Hannah for manslaughter in connection with the Roslyn tram accident. -Oamaru Mail, 4/7/1881.
THE COURTS. — TO-DAY.
SUPREME COURT. CIVIL SITTINGS.
(Before His Honor Mr Justice Johnston and a Special Jury.)
Henry Herbert Liggins v. the Roslyn Tramway Company (Limited). — Claim, 1.2,000 damages in consequence of injuries sustained to plaintiff on April 23 by an accident on the Roslyn tramway line by the negligence of defendants' servants.
Mr Stout, with him Mr H. Howorth, appeared for the plaintiff; Mr Hagitt, with Mm Mr Macgregor, for the defendant.
The following special jury was empanelled: — Thomas S. Graham (foreman), George Turnbull, Thomas Thompson, Joseph F. Watson, William Christie, Charles H. Statham, William A. Todd, Robert Young, Robert Saunders, Francis L, Clarke, William Cargill, Alfred Boot.
Mr Stout, in opening the case, said that plaintiff sought to recover L2.000 as damages in consequence of his health being seriously and permanently injured by the Roslyn tram accident. The defendants had paid L75 into Court as sufficient to satisfy the claim made. In one way the duty of the jury would be a light one. They had not to consider whether there had been negligence or not in the construction or management of the tram-car or tramway; they had simply to say whether L 75 was enough or not to pay plaintiff for the damages he had sustained; therefore the only evidence adduced would be that of people who knew the plaintiff before the accident and had known him since, and who would be able to say how great a change he had undergone in consequence of the injury he sustained. This injury was not like an ordinary injury. For example, a man might break a leg or lose an arm, and it would be known at once what effect that would have on his employment. But, unfortunately for the plaintiff, he had sustained a fracture of the skull, and his brain had been permanently injured. He had been unable to resume his work, and it was found that his memory was gone. He had also become quite despondant. The plaintiff at the time of the accident was a clerk in the employ of Royse, Stead, and Co.; he was a reliable, active, and intelligent young man, but in consequence of his injuries the doctors were afraid he would never got better. Dr Neill, of Wellington, with whom he had been living for the last five or six weeks, would state that his memory, for example, was almost completely gone, that he had a tendency to sleep, and was unfit for his avocation. In such a case as this it was simply ridiculous to pay into Court the sum of L75, which would not even compensate for his loss of wages, medical expenses, and nursing up to the time of the issue of the writ in the case. Before the accident plaintiff was of a happy disposition, fond of athletic amusements, and full of life; since then his disposition seemed to have been wholly changed. He asked the jury to award such damages that plaintiff would not be a burden to his brothers or his father. The plaintiff was in Court, but considering his mental condition it would not be judicious for him to be called as a witness.
James Liggins, father of the plaintiff, stated: My son will be twenty-two years of age next month. Before the accident he was clerk to Messrs Royse, Stead, and Co. He had been with them for nearly seven years. The last twelve months he received Ll0 a month. He was educated at the High School. I was in Melbourne when the accident occurred. He was in particularly good health in body and mind before the accident, and was of very active habit. In disposition he was amiable and contented. He lived at home, and was always very steady. I arrived here from Melbourne early in May. My son was lying in bed with a fractured skull. He got out about May 14. He tried to go back to work a week later, but we found that he was unable to continue it. He remained at home for seventeen or eighteen days, and then went back to work. For a time we thought he was much improved, but afterwards we found that he began to be very despondent. Since the accident he always had a tendency to sleep, and this increased. He had to leave, again. He remained in town and showed signs of despondency and trouble; his general health seemed much impaired. He went to Wellington, remaining there five or six weeks, and returned last Friday. We consider his health worse now than when he left. Before the accident he was stout-built; now he has wasted away a good deal and become very thin. His memory seems to be very deficient, while hitherto it had been particularly good. His disposition is heavy, whereas he was bright before; he cannot carry on a connected conversation, and his tendency to sleep is still great.
His Honor: Was he under medical treatment in Wellington?
Mr Stout: We will produce the doctor with whom he stayed there.
Witness: He exhibits symptoms of acute pain, and complains of a pain in the back of the neck and head. He eats and drinks fairly. Before the accident he was particularly energetic; now he lies on the sofa whenever he gets a chance.
His Honor: Is he your only child?
Witness: No; I have five sons. He is the second. The medical expenses and attendances that I incurred with him up to his going to Wellington amounted to L72.
His Honor: Witness says "I incurred." Recollect it is the son suing.
Mr Stout submitted that the son being of age he was bound to pay back his father if he had the means,
His Honor: Was his going to Wellington in pursuance of advice in respect to his health?
Witness: He was advised to have a change. Before the accident he had proposed to have his life insured in the Australian Mutual Provident Society, and it was accepted. Afterwards the risk was refused.
Mr Haggitt objecting to this evidence, His Honor ruled that it was not admissible through this witness.
Mr Stout said he would call the insurance agent.
In answer to Mr Haggitt, the witness stated: The L 72 was made up as follows: — Dr Borrows, L22 15s; nurse, L10; medicine, L1 5s; and loss of salary...
His Honor: You said the L72 was for medical expenses incurred.
Witness: I included the loss of his salary, L21 13s 4d, and expenses in connection with this action. My son went into Royse, Stead's at fifteen, receiving a salary of, I think, 10s per week. When I returned Dr Borrows was visiting my son frequently — sometimes twice a day. Before my son went to Wellington he went to his work at Royse, Stead's every day for two months. He did not ask for leave of absence before going away. He left here on August 31. He stayed with Dr Neill at Wellington as a guest. He has not returned to work since he came back to Dunedin. I say he is not fit for work now.
William Royse, a member of the firm of Royse, Stead, and Co., grain merchants: I know the plaintiff Herbert Liggins. He has been in our employment as junior clerk for about seven years. He was a fair, average clerk; active, Intelligent, and quite steady in his work. I don't consider he had any special ability; but a fair, average clerk. He was energetic, and appeared healthy. At the time of the accident he was receiving Ll0 per month. In all probability he would have got an advance next Christmas. After the accident he was in our office for six or eight weeks. Apparently he was very dull, and his work had to be checked. There were errors in it.
His Honor: He did not do his work as he used to?
Witness: Oh, no, I had to intimate to his father that we could not keep him on as his work was unreliable.
To Mr Haggitt: I discovered his unreliability partly myself, and it was partly reported to me by Mr Stevenson, the head book-keeper. I did not fill up the plaintiff's place before he went to Wellington. I have filled it up now.
Daniel Stevenson (manager for Royse, Stead, and Co,), stated: When I joined the firm five years ago plaintiff was in their employ. He was smart, active, intelligent, perfectly steady, and attentive to his work. He seemed to have good health. He took an interest in his work. I remember the accident. He returned to his work on May 27 and remained a few days. He did nothing.
His Honor: And why did he do nothing?
Witness: He was not fit for work. He tried, but could not succeed. He could write, but not calculate. He came back to his work again on June 20. He was put to the same work as he did formerly, but was unfit for it. He came at any time he thought proper. He was dull and stupid, and I discovered many clerical errors. Before his illness he was very correct. He seemed to have lost all interest in his work. When he was asked to add up figures he failed and complained of head-ache. He stopped with us over two months, leaving on August 23. He got no better. I had spoken to his father as to his unfitness from time to time. He was not fit for any clerical work.
Dr Robert Borrows was the next witness. He stated: I have been family doctor for the Ligginses since I came to Dunedin. Before the accident the plaintiff grow up an active, lively young man. I saw him about an hour and a half after the accident, and found him in bed in a curious mental state. He seemed somewhat excited and foolish, repeating things over and over again, indicating that he had recently suffered a violent concussion of the brain. Additional evidence of this was afforded by his physical state. On the crown of the head was an abrasion three inches long; on the right side, under the hair, I found a considerable swelling. He seemed scarcely to feel the effects of his injuries. There were other external marks of violence. The next morning I found that he had been restless, and complained of severe pain and stiffness on the back of the head and of general soreness. On the fourth day after the accident the swelling on the head had sufficiently subsided to enable me to discover a fracture of the brain. I watched for inflammation of the brain in consequence of the great restlessness he showed. I have seen him since he came from Wellington. He is an altered lad — not the same in appearance; his mental faculties seem resting under a cloud, From the history of the course of the statement I infer that the brain at the time of the accident suffered bruising from the shock, apart from depression of the bone, sufficient to impair the brain. I don't think he will ever permanently recover. If ever he should get better I should take a limit of seven years — in which time the whole frame is likely to undergo revolution. He is unfit to ruder take any brainwork, I only allowed his attempted resumption of duty to relieve him, if I could, of the melancholy which seemed to be setting over him, I wished to cheer him up.
John Crawford, storekeeper, living in Elm row: Soon after the accident I helped the plaintiff home. He was running about the Shamrock Hotel, which is opposite the scene of the accident, and did not seem to know what he was doing. He was apparently wandering in his mind, and did not know what he was about.
To Mr Haggitt: He could have walked home without my assistance.
His Honor; It was not his legs that were injured, but the brain.
Dr Alexander H. Neill, medical superintendent of the Mount View Lunatic Asylum, Wellington: I know the plaintiff. I had known him in Dunedin some time ago as a patient. He had a slight discharge from the ear. I saw him in Dunedin soon after the accident. He was in his bed; the room was darkened, cold applications were on his head. I was not seeing him as a medical practitioner then. He pointed out to me where his head was injured, and I distinctly felt a fracture with depression of the bone. I saw him on his arrival in Wellington. He stayed in my house by my wish for over a month. During that time I have closely observed him, and have noticed a great change in his mental and physical condition. He is much less active, very sluggish in his movements, quiet and silent in his manner, and unable to continue a connected conversation for any lengthened time. His memory is very defective. I asked him to go messages, but could never depend on him. He is unfit for clerical work, or for any work requiring the use of his brain; neither is he fit for physical labor. He is much thinner than he was when he came to Wellington. He is unable to walk steadily, frequently staggering as though he were drunk. He complains of pain on the back of his head, and to the right eyebrow, which I attribute to injury to the brain. He shows a great tendency to sleep, and is unable to read for any lengthened time. He will never be as fit for work as he was before the accident. As a matter of opinion, I should say it is quite possible he may never be able to earn his bread. It is possible after some years that he may be able to earn his bread. The probabilities are that he may become epileptic or fatuous. I am what is termed a specialist as regards brain diseases. I have seen no improvement since he came to me.
Edmund Robinson Smith, canvassing agent for the Mutual Provident Society: Plaintiff made application for insurance on his life. The policy was accepted before the accident. After the accident we required that Dr Brown, our medical referee, should give a certificate that his health was unaltered. Dr Brown refused to give that certificate.
To Mr Smith: His age was twenty-two; he was put down as twenty-seven. That was the reason the insurance was not completed. This was the plaintiff's case.
Mr Haggitt intimated that he would call no witnesses.
Mr Stout briefly addressed the jury. He said that after the medical evidence there could be little doubt that the plaintiff would be permanently injured. The jury were not simply to award some provision for the injury the plaintiff had sustained, but he was entitled to receive compensation for injuries past and prospective. Mr Haggitt pointed out that the defendants admitted that the accident was caused by the negligence of their servants. They simply came into Court and asked the jury to assess fairly, impartially, and after due consideration the amount of damages which they ought to pay in consequence of the unfortunate accident of which they were the victims.
The learned counsel then addressed the jury in defence of the amount paid into Court. He asked the jury not to give excessive or vindictive damages. As defendants had not denied their responsibility or liability, the jury should simply assess reasonable compensation. The jury answered the only issue put to them as follows: Is the plaintiff entitled to recover, and if any what sum in respect of the causes of action in the declaration mentioned over and above the sum of L75 paid into Court by the defendants? — L925 in addition to L 75 paid into Court. -Evening Star, 10/10/1881.
Henry Liggins died in 1903, aged 43. He was married.
The Roslyn Tram Company, which has been unable to pay a dividend hitherto, on account of the heavy sum paid on account of the accident some years ago, will pay 5 per cent. this year. -Oamaru Mail, 30/7/1886.
No comments:
Post a Comment