Fatal accident at Phoenix brewery (1895)

Post date: Mar 11, 2012 1:47:52 PM

Extract from London Standard of 5th December 1896:

A WIDOW'S ACTION FOR COMPENSATION. Burton v. A. N. Pryer and Co. — The Plaintiff was widow and administratrix of Mr. W. H. Burton, who met his death whilst the Defendants, who were builders, at Westborough, near Maidstone, were doing work at the Phoenix Brewery, Wateringbury. The Plaintiff claimed damages in respect of the loss of her husband, alleging that it was brought about through negligence on the part of some servant of the Defendants. — Mr. Kemp, Q.C, and Mr. Peile were for the Plaintiff ; and Mr. Macaskie for the Defendants.

The accident happened on November 13, 1895. The deceased was a journeyman vat maker; was in the employment of Messrs. Shuter and Co., coopers, and was at work at the brewery, which belonged to Messrs. Leney. The Defendants were at that time rebuilding the brewery; and the Plaintiff alleged that the premises, whilst the work was going on, were under the control of the Defendants and their servants. On the evening of the accident the deceased was descending one of the ladders that were placed from floor to floor, and were provided by the Defendants, when he fell over a plank which was lying near the foot of the ladder, and fell down a well-hole which ran from top to bottom of the premises, fractured his skull, and died the same evening. The Defendants pleaded, denying that they were responsible for what had happened, and suggesting that the accident might have been avoided had the deceased himself been more careful.

Witnesses were called to make out the case for the Plaintiff. Mr. Macaskie, however, submitted that these witnesses had made out no case to go to the Jury; there was nothing to show that the Defendants or their servants had done anything that was improper; and, as to the well-hole, that could not be fenced whilst the work was going on. Mr. Justice Hawkins saw no evidence of negligence on the part of the Defendants, but declined to decide the case upon that ground.

The Jury interposed, saying that in their opinion the verdict should be for the Defendants; but they expressed the hope that something might be done for the widow. Mr. Justice Hawkins explained to them how dangerous it would be for the Defendants to make any offer of that kind when proceedings at law had commenced. Mr. Macaskie said that such an offer had, in fact, been made, but it was not accepted. A Juror suggested that the Jurors might subscribe their guinea fees to further the object referred to; but to this there was no response, and the matter seemed to fall through.

For other nineteenth century accidents in Wateringbury see also Child left home alone dies of burns, Drunk hopper drowns in Medway, Speeding Boy Racer Losses control on Red Hill, Fatal accident at Wateringbury station , Two work related deaths within days and Plumber's Fatal Accident