yesterday took a pounding after Magistrate Arthur Hodgson threw out all but one of six charges laid in connection with the death of crane operator Teddy Sewell.

The latest developments follow a day of legal arguments over who was liable for providing for the safety of Mr. Sewell, who died in November, 1995, when his crane flipped over on its side while attempting to lift a container at Bull's Head car park.

The Crown originally laid six charges under the Health and Safety at Work 1982, accusing Sea-Land -- represented by lawyers Jai Pachai and Duncan Hall -- of failing to provide for necessary safety equipment, not having the crane inspected in the 12 months preceding the accident, and allowing the crane to be run by an untrained operator.

Site supervisor Peter Vosvenieks -- represented by Mark Diel -- meanwhile was charged with failing to ensure the crane's outriggers (stabilisers) were fully extended, failing to ensure the crane had the necessary levelling device, and failing to ensure the crane was being operated with its lifting boom at optimum length and angle.

The third charge against Mr. Vosvenieks was thrown out on Thursday. Following an afternoon and morning of legal wrangling, Mr. Hodgson late yesterday threw out the remaining charges against Mr. Vosvenieks and all but the first charge against Sea-Land.

"We are grateful the Magistrate got it absolutely right when he said he was struggling with the fact as to why Mr. Vosvenieks was in the trial at all,'' Mr. Diel told The Royal Gazette .

Mr. Vosvenieks however said the whole situation had left a bitter taste.

"Health and Safety, rightly so, have seen a weakness in the construction industry, but they're going after the wrong end,'' he said.

Meanwhile a New Jersey crane expert -- the last witness called to testify -- told the Court the primary cause of the fatal accident was operator complacency about the weight of the container and the positioning of the crane in relation to the flatbed truck carrying the container.

Under questioning by the defence, Robert Manalio, of Oceanic Equipment Ltd., told the court that in most cases the given weight of a cargo container is never correct.

"If I had a nickel for every container that came off the Island with an incorrectly listed weight I'd be a millionaire,'' he said. "These weights are always off, sometimes way off.'' While the load inside the container was listed as 16,000 pounds, the actual weight of the load was 16,180 pounds. In addition the tare (empty) weight of the container was given at 4,000 pounds when in reality it was 4,810 pounds.

Compounding the problem he said was the fact that Mr. Sewell did not factor in the weight of the crane's block and slinging, which added another 1,100 pounds to the equation.

Mr. Sewell had also spent the previous four weeks moving containers around Sea-Land's yard, he said, and perhaps he'd become a little complacent.

Another major factor in the accident was the position of the crane in relation to the flatbed truck. Called to investigate the accident shortly after it happened, Mr. Manalio said it appeared Mr. Sewell had positioned the crane so as to avoid four overhead power lines. However there was room to pull the truck ahead another ten feet and that should have been done, he said.

"This was very easy lift, a safe lift. It was just configured incorrectly.

The truck should have been moved ten feet forward.'' Factors such as the level and position of the crane's outriggers did have a bearing on how quickly the crane flipped over, but were not the cause of the accident.

Mr. Manalio told the Court the presence of an in-built levelling device would have been no help. Factory-installed levels are virtually useless after a few years of service, due to the rough treatment received while in the field.

It is standard practice for crane operators to carry a three-foot carpenter's level instead, but none was found that day at Bulls Head car park, he said.

The level of the crane does become a factor when during critical heavy lifts, said Mr. Manalio; the heavier the lift the greater the need for a level platform.

Under cross examination by Crown counsel Philip Storr, Mr. Manalio agreed Mr.

Sewell was in fact attempting such an "overload'' or maximum lift.

Following brief closing arguments Mr. Hodgson informed counsel he would be reserving his decision. Judgement is expected within a few weeks.