Mexborough and Swinton Times February 21st 1936
Jubilee Aftermath
Conisbrough Boy’s Hand Shattered By Firework
Heavy Damages
Conisbrough Council to pay £1,250
At Leeds Assizes on Wednesday, before Mr Justice McKinnon, Raymond Longley, aged 12, of Ivanhoe road, Conisbrough sued the Conisbrough Urban District Council, for damages for personal injury.
He lost his right hand through the explosion of a firework on North Cliff Recreation Ground on May 7, the morning after a fireworks display organised by the Conisbrough Urban District Council in celebration of the Silver Jubilee.
The jury awarded £1,250 damages, with costs.
The boys suits his father, George William Longley, a miner, and Mr J Willoughby Jardine K.C. and Mr JF Drabble appeared for him.
Mr J.H.B. Streatfield represented the Urban Council, and Mr C.Paley Scott, K.C. and Mr A.P. Theaker appeared for Messrs H Shaw and Sons, fireworks manufacturers, Rowley Hill, Lepton, near Huddersfield.
After the Fireworks
Mr Jardine, said the defendant, the Urban District Council, were the proprietors and custodians of the Conisbrough public recreation ground. In celebration of the Royal Silver Jubilee there was a fireworks display in the recreation ground on the evening of May 6, and it was alleged that on the morning of the seventh there were lying about in the grounds many discarded firework most of which were exploded and presumably harm. These, it was contended, were a temptation the children.
Right Hand Shattered
this case would be that the defendant took no steps to safeguard children using the ground. The infant plaintiff went with other children, and while playing picked up one of the discarded fireworks, which had apparently been explored. He threw it into the ashes of what had been a fire, and which, it was submitted, was still burning, and, the result was an explosion in his hand. The boys right hand was shattered and it had to be amputated about the wrist. He also suffered injuries to the face and right eye which, however, which had now cleared away.
No Adequate Supervision
The plaintiff’s case said Counsel, was that there was no adequate supervision recreation ground, and that no warning of any kind was given to the children.
The defendant, by their defence, did not admit that you were any discarded firework left about, and said that, is there were, they were not dangerous. They also alleged that at the time of the accident, the infant plaintiff was a trespasser.
A portion close to the children’s playground was enclosed with temporary posts and rails, said Counsel, as the fireworks enclosure. The fence had a top rail and the middle row and offered no sort of obstacle.
On the morning of May 7 the infant plaintiff went with another boy and after playing around a bonfire which was still burning, they went towards the children’s playground and the fireworks enclosure.
Councils Obligation
The boy was amusing himself on one of the slides the playground when a boy named Croft passed to him what appeared to be an empty fireworks case. Another boy named Taylor at picked it up in the fireworks enclosure, and had thrown it over the temporary fence. Longley knocked on the ground what he saw was a charred end of the firework, and prodded it into the ashes of a fire. It went off at once.
The liability was clear submitted Counsel. It was an obligation and duty which defendant ought to the public to see that these dangerous objects were not left about.
Evidence was given by Albert Woodward, a Denaby miner, who said he was sitting on a form in the recreation ground before the explosion. After the boy had been taken away park keeper asked witness in one or two others to go into the enclosure and keep the children out.
The Bang
Raymond Longley, describing the events of the morning, said nobody told them to go out of the enclosure. He threw three empty cases away just outside the enclosure, and said he was standing by one of the slides in the playground when Crofts threw a “cracker” to him. It had a wooden point at the end. He hit it in order to get the burnt stuff of, and then stuck it into the fire.
In reply to Mr Streatfeild, Longley said he came out of the enclosure as he went in – through the rails. The case that Croft through to him was different from the others, it was every, and there was a point on it. He did not remember saying “We’ll take this to the fire, and see if there is anything in it.”
Mrs Street feel: Is it not a fact that when you got it in your hand you thought it might give you a bit of fun? – Yes
You thought it might fizz? – No
Witness denied that he was looking for gunpowder.
Harry Mangham, a Denaby miner, said when the bang occurred he carried a boy to a halt in the recreation ground was every, and there was a point on it. He did not remember saying “”We’ll take this to the fire, and see if there is anything in it.””
Mr StreatfeildIs it not a fact that when you got it in your hand you thought it might give you a bit of fun? – Yes
You thought it might fizz? – No
Witness denied that she was looking for gunpowder.
Harry Mangham, a Denaby miner, said when the bang occurred he carried a boy to a halt in the recreation ground. In reply to Mr Streatfeild witness said that when he saw the fire before the explosion it seemed to be out.
In reply to Mr Streatfeild witness said that when he saw the fire before the explosion it seemed to be out.
No Warning of Misspent Fireworks
Mr Streatfeild called Mr Harry Thirlwall, engineer and surveyor to the Urban District Council, who said he was in charge of the arrangements for the fireworks display. He received no warning from Mr Shaw, who came down, as to any unspent firework that might be left after the display. The actual firing of the display was being left to Messrs Shaw, and witness had no warning as to early clearing up being required.
Witness agreed with Mr Jardine that it would be undesirable that unspent firework should be left accessible to children.
Reginald Threlgeld, employed as a park keeper by the This year Council, said he lit the fire outside the children’s playground for the purpose of having the stuff cleared up from the playground.
Firework Firms Position
Henry Shaw, of Rowley Hill, leptin, a partner in the firm of Henry Shaw and Sons, firework manufacture, said their business had been in existence since 1864. They are nothing to do, he said, with the clearing up after the display. On the evening on may six the add no fireworks with Wood sticking out, such as been described by the boys. Nothing used that night could have blown off a boys hand.
Mrs Mary Louisa Moore, Station Road, Ferrybridge, said she packed up the fireworks used at Conisbrough and she went there to see that all was right. All the six flash rockets went up, and there was nothing else that could have gone off with a violent explosion. None of the fireworks in the list could have blown off the boys hand.
Mr Paley Scott, after consultation, intimated that subject to the question between the plaintiff and the Urban Council, the Judge would not be troubled as to any question between the council and Messrs Shaw.
“Everybody Acted in Good Faith.”
Mr Streatfeild, for the Council, said it was clear that, Whereas Messrs Shaw were experts, the Council, were relied entirely on their independent contractors, were not. It was simple for them, as laymen, to assume that the fireworks would explore and function as they were designed to do. If they had no reason to be aware and ought not to be aware, that a dangerous thing I been left on the land, there was no obligation on them to give a warning. Even if it were held that there was negligence on their part, it could be held there was contributory conduct on the part of the boy stop
Mr Justice MacKinnon said the case arose from a most lamentable accident. An accident the more lamentable because, in all ordinary expectation of the likelihood of things, there seemed no reason why it should happened.
If he were assessing damages on the base of penalty for a negligence on the part of the Surveyor, the District Council, their officers, or Messrs Shaw, the penalty would be very small. Everybody acted in every good faith and in expectation of the probabilities of things.