FATAL FALL DOWN A LIFT.
[United Press Association.] WELLINGTON, Friday.
Shortly before 10 o'clock this morning a man named Samuel Stevenson, employed by the contractors for putting an additional story to Sargood, Sons, and Ewen's warehouse, fell down the well of the lift used by the builders and died in a few minutes. His skull was broken, and one of his arms. Deceased was a single man, aged about 35. -Nelson Evening Mail, 2/8/1907.
In connection with the death of Samuel Stevenson through a lift accident, at Wellington, the Post says: — An eye-witness of the accident states that the unfortunate man fell outside the building all the way — a clear drop, head foremost. He uttered no sound as he descended, and from the impact on the ground it seemed as if every bone in his body must be crushed. Though evidently alive, he appeared to be unable to speak, and he was carried into the warehouse. The beholder found it a nerve-trying spectacle, and the duration of the fall seemed appalling. He has no idea how deceased lost his foothold. -Fielding Star, 3/8/1907.
THE WELLINGTON FATALITY.
The contractors believe that the unfortunate man, Samuel Stevenson, who met a terribly sudden death in Wellington yesterday must have walked backward, unconscious of his danger, and toppled down the lift-well. As he fell he evidently struck the lift, which was on its way down, and was jerked outwards. The deceased, who was a single man, entered Messrs Campbell and Burkes employ at Masterton about three years ago, and was regarded by them as one of their best labourers. He was sober and industrious and popular with his mates. It is understood that he has a brother living at Lumsden and a sister at Palmerston North. -Wairarapa Daily Times, 3/8/1907.
A FATAL FALL.
THE DEATH OF SAMUEL STEVENSON.
CORONER'S INQUEST.
An inquest was held on Saturday afternoon, before Mr. James Ashcroft, district coroner, as to the manner in which Samuel B. Stevenson came by his death on Friday morning last.
Sergeant Phair represented the police, and Mr. R. A. Boland, inspector of scaffolding, was present on behalf of the labour department. Mr. Blair represented Messrs. Campbell and Burke, contractors, whose contract it was to erect the building for Sargood, Son and Ewen, at which work was in, progress when deceased sustained the injuries which caused his death.
THE BUILDING.
Daniel Burke, contractor, gave evidence that there was a scaffold, with railing, all round the place on which deceased worked. The railing was about four foot high from the spot on which deceased stood. The spot was about 60 feet from the ground. Witness's opinion was that deceased must have fallen down the well of the lift. So far as witness could ascertain no one saw deceased fall. The particular work he was engaged on at the time of the accident had been going on for about two weeks, and deceased had made no complaints about its nature or anything else connected with it. He could not tell how he came to fall. His work consisted in taking the barrows of cement off the lift and putting the empty barrows in their place. He had been working for the firm, without accident, for over two years. He was a sober man.
To Sergeant Phair: Just after the accident witness saw the lift. It was 5ft 6in from the top of the building. Under ordinary circumstances there would be a barrow on it, but there was none at this juncture. There was a barrow on the roof of the building.
To Mr. Blair: There was a space of about 8 inches between the edge of the lift and the staging. It was left so that the handles of the barrows could be kept clear of the staging. To blow the whistle which gave the signal for setting the lift in motion it was essential for the blower to stand clear of the lift. He could not get to the whistle otherwise. If Stevenson had fallen outside of the rail of the scaffold it would have been impossible for him to hit the lift, and it was considered probable that he did hit the barrow and the lift as he fell, knocking the barrow off the lift on to the roof of a lower story. The winchman heard a scream and he stopped the lift immediately. The fact of the barrow being off the platform indicated that deceased must have struck the lift, and therefore it was quite clear he must have fallen inwards; he could not have struck the lift had he fallen outside of the scaffold rail.
A QUESTION OF WAGES.
To Mr. F. J. Lyons (representing the Building Trades Labourers' Union), witness said it was not possible for a man to accidentally slip through a space of eight inches that existed between two of the planks. (The foreman interjected that the man would involuntarily spread out his arms and save himself). The secretary wanted to examine the witness as to whether the wages of 35s per weak which witness paid to the winchman was not below the Arbitration Court's provision as to rate of wages, but the coroner refused to allow this line to be proceeded with, holding that an inquest was no place for a labour inquiry. Mr. Lyons expressed regret at the decision, saying he desired to establish whether or not the firm had employed competent men for the job. These young men of 22 years or so were in the habit of leaving their lifts at times to assist at other duties.
The coroner replied that the time to do that was when the winchman gave evidence.
THE WINCHMAN'S EVIDENCE.
Charles Arthur Menins gave evidence that he heard a cry and immediately stopped the lift. He saw deceased falling from above, with his hands and legs spread out. He discovered afterwards that the lift had got down five or six feat before he stopped it.
The Coroner: Can you suggest any likely cause of the accident?
Witness: I have known him to shift the barrow, a bit after he blew the whistle for the lift to start. That would put him in danger, for it was possible for the shifting of the lift to pull him over the scaffold.
The foreman of the jury: If he shifted the barrow after he blew the whistle he was courting danger? — Yes.
And yet Mr. Burke says he was a careful man? — Yes.
The Coroner: But he had no need to do it? — No.
To Mr. Lyons: Witness heard the whistle distinctly before he started the lift. He had been working for the firm for eighteen months. If the barrow was put over too far on the lift it was possible for it to fall off the lift. He believed that had occurred on the buildings once.
To the Foreman: He did not see deceased stoop on this occasion to touch the barrow after the lift started, but he was not looking at him. The whistle was sounded by deceased, and that meant all clear.
To Mr. Bolland: The whistle had quite a distinct sound from any other. He could not mistake a tram whistle for it.
Professional evidence was given by Dr. Henry, who said the man was dead when witness saw him. It would be impossible in the circumstances to diagnose whether the fall was preceded by a fit of any kind
OTHER WITNESSES.
Richard Alfred Bolland, inspector of scaffolding for the Labour Department. said he inspected the lift and its adjuncts both before and since the accident. He could see nothing wrong, and | generally speaking he considered the appliances complete and proper. He did not consider the space left between the planks (to which reference had already been made) an element of danger, except in so far as there was danger in any opening at a great height from the ground. From all he could gather the man must have struck the barrow on the lift after it was stopped.
A fellow workman named Michael Murphy deposed that the winchman was a competent man. In witness's opinion deceased must have stepped off the platform in a moment of absent | mindedness. As regarded appliances and safety, ho considered Campbell and Burke's was the best firm he had ever worked for. All the men on the works were agreed that no blame was attachable to anyone.
The foreman of the works (Arthur Cox) gave evidence that he was sure the winchman had done his duty. He thought that, after whistling, the deceased had stepped back into the liftwell after the lift had fallen a few feet in response to his signal, and that he knocked the barrow off in his fall.
The jury expressed its belief that the cause of death was purely accidental, but that there was not sufficient evidence to show specifically how the fall was occasioned. -Evening Post, 5/8/1907.
No comments:
Post a Comment