A ROAD BOARD'S LIABILITY.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume VII, Issue 1874, 22 June 1888, Page 3

A ROAD BOARD'S LIABILITY.

At the R.M. Court 3'esterdfty, Captain Wray gave judgment m the caeo, David Wilson v W akauui Koad Board, m which the Bum of £20 was claimed for damages alleged to have been eus'ained through the wrongful aod negligent cot of tho defendant Board m diverting overflow water from the river on to p'amtiflE's pro party, whereby some valuable lani was rendered valueless, and a quantity of fencing swept away. The particular of claim briefly were : — (I) That the Board some years a^o, by the formation of a road known as Wilson's to id, and allowing ihe erection of fences thereon, without duo provision forfords, diverted the overflow of the Aehbnrton river from its natural course towards the Wakanoj school gaily, and caused itt> fl.wdown tho road towards the plaintiff's land ; (2) That m the month of July last the Boad Board cut a channel across the road, which had the efliect of diverting the water from the road into the plaintiff's land, and into a gully thereon, thus causing the damage complained of. | The Magistrate, m giving judgment, said that it appeared to him the Ashburton river waß tubject to periodical floods, and that m July and October two Buch floods occurred, m the latter oE which the damage forming the subject of the notion was occ.sioned. In tho July fl od a large hole was scoured out on Wilson's road, m filling up which nubsequenfcly, the Board cut a channel which the plaintiff alleged caused the water to flow from the road on to his land during the subsequent Oc l ober flood. The questions for the Court were : (a) Waß the original formation of the road bo negligently carried out as to interrupt the natural w&Aer courses, and thua divert the flood wator down the road m the direction of the plaintiff's Un.d ; (b) Waß the cqtting or channel made'by the Board on Wilson's road the cause of the injury complained of. The evidence, ac might be expeoted, regarding the t atural flow of the water m previous ypara, was conflicting. Latterly tha river seems to have overflowed at a point marked fA," on the plan produced, and the plainti|| appeared to have directed his evidence to the natural ovefjow at that point, But it has been shown that m former year* the river broke out at pointß lower down than "A." Th.c road wag formed m }877 — more than ten years ago -rrrand looking at thy uncertainty of the river's flooding, and whore it might bo expected to break out, he d d not consider that the Board could be held to have acted negligently m not providing fords or outlets m the direction of the Wakanui school guliy. Before tho formation of the road m question flood water found its way to the plaintiff's land, and he thought that the evidence showed that m the last flood a lorge body of water waß thmyn iiato Wilann'a gully by independent chanpe'lß, riot affected by the road fir its fences. With" regard to the channel made by the Board hp was nqt satisfied that th,Q >yate? which escaped from tho road by means of it had any material influence m causing the damage to the plaintiff's land ; it did not seem to him to have aflieoted the main body of the flood water which apparently caused the soour m the late heavy flood, On the whole then it had not been shown that the damage was ocosaioned by the Board's action or negligence-, Mr Wilding, for tho plaintiff, elected to take a non euit. Plaintiff was non-suited accordingly. The question of costs was allowed to ifltand over as counsel for the Board was not present.