after cleaning a cesspit was following recognised practices, the Appeal Court was told yesterday.

Mr. Charles Grant was in charge of the Highland Sanitation Services which had been asked to clean and empty the cesspit at the Robin Hood Pub, in Hamilton in August, 1991.

Mr. Grant, his cousin Mr. Melbourne (Willie) Grant and Mr. Antoine Burgess were in the pit when toxic fumes overcame them. Charles Grant and Mr. Burgess were immersed in the sewage after falling unconscious and Willie Grant went down to rescue them.

He too became unconscious because of the high concentration of hydrogen sulphide and he collapsed into the pit. All three were rescued and although Willie Grant regained consciousness he died later in hospital.

Mr. Burgess also died later in hospital and Charles Grant survived.

Last year, at the Supreme Court, Willie Grant's widow, Mrs. Marcia Grant, was awarded $163,000 in compensation for her husband's death and Charles Grant was also later sued for negligence.

The amount was reduced to $130,000 because the Judge ruled that had Willie Grant secured himself with a rope before entering the pit he might not have died. As a result, he ruled there had been contributory negligence on the part of Willie Grant.

The court was told that Charles Grant did not require his men to wear certain safety equipment, he also had no emergency or first aid equipment. The Judge said he found that Charles Grant knew there were fumes in the pit and that such fumes could cause a person to faint.

Yesterday, at the Appeal Court, the level of compensation and the findings of negligence were challenged by Charles Grant's lawyer, Mr. Richard Hector QC.

Mr. Hector, said his client had worked for several operators before setting up a business of his own and throughout his 20 years in the trade had never encountered any danger to either himself or his men.

"He is a caring man and my submission is that there is no evidence that there was any unusual danger that should have made him take unusual precautions,'' said Mr. Hector.

"It is easy to be wise after the event and after this the Health and Safety Department isued new clear guidelines. It is my contention that Mr. Grant was following a recognised procedure.

"Nothing in his experience, of more than 20 years, indicated that he should have treated this cess pit differently to any others. He felt there was no danger and he had a way of doing the job,'' added Mr. Hector.

Mr. Darcy Lord, who was representing Mrs. Grant, said it was not sufficient for Charles Grant to say he was doing what other people in the same trade did.

On the question of contributory negligence, Mr. Lord said Willie Grant could not have altered the sequence of events leading up to the time he tried to rescue Charles Grant and Mr. Burgess.

"There was nothing he could have done to prevent those prior acts. Our submission is that he was not at fault and his injuries and subsequent death were caused initially by the fault of Charles Grant,'' added Mr. Lord. "In the circumstances Willie Grant felt impelled to rescue his cousin.'' Judgement was reserved.