The Ashburton Guardian. Magna est Veritas et Prævalebit. THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 1888. RESPONSIBILITIES OF GOVERNING BODIES.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume VII, Issue 1949, 20 September 1888, Page 2

The Ashburton Guardian. Magna est Veritas et Prævalebit. THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 1888. RESPONSIBILITIES OF GOVERNING BODIES.

I ~"™~^— [ Members of County Councils and Road Boards will do well to take heed to their ways m view of recent authoritative expositions of the law as affecting their responsibilities. Owing to the fact that of late years tho problem of ways and means has been one of increasing difficulty, and to the furtherfact that m jears gone by, most of the bridges and culverts were constructed by wood, which circumstance is, through tho natural process of the decay cf that perishable material, already bringing about the unpleasant, because costly, necessity of providing for renewal, the prospect which lies before these governing or rather administrative bodies is anything but a rosy one. Some of them, indeed, despairing of being able to provide funds for the works m question, have contemplated doing without them altogether, leaving the settlers to put up with the ancient I system of fords m lieu of bridges. Of such is the Gcraldine County Council, but that body before carrying out this retrograde policy had the wisdom first to 1 consult its solicitors to whom it has propounded the following questions, viz : " First, what is the nature of tho liability incurred by the Council m permitting 1 bridges under its control to fall into disrepair. Secondly, what effect will the posting of monitory notices at the ondß of bridges have m limiting the Council's liability ; and, thirdly, what position will the Council be m if under the resolution it absolutely closes the bridges." To these questions the solicitors m question (Messrs White, tSmithson and Kaymond) bftye replied categorically aB follows ;— 1

"On the first question we are of opinion that the Council having the control of the brdges has authority to do all needful repairs, and that as the ' i Legislature has provided the. Council with means for effecting such repairs^ a ' duty of properly repairing is cast upon 8 it. For breach of this duty proceedings by way ot indictment against the Council £ could be instituted on behalf of the, public, and m tho " event of a casualty - resulting through the disrepair any one i injured m person or property could hold the Council liable m damages. More- ' over, by Bection Bof * The Public Works ( Act Amendment Act 1887,' m the event of the Council neglecting its duty j'the Minister for Public Works is authorised to maintain, repair, or reconstruct the bridge and charge the Council with the cost. "As to the second question, we are of opinion that by posting up a danger notice the Council would not obtain an indemnity against loss arising through the breach of its statutory duty. No doubt anyone using a bridge after hay ing knowledge of such a notice would be held to have voluntarily incurred the risk and be debarred from recovering damages, The onus of fixing such a person with notice would rest upon the Council, and it is obvious that it could rarely succeed m removing this onus. Further than this we think the Council would not be protected by posting the notice. " With regard to the third question, the closing of the bridge, we are of opinion, would be a breach of duty. The Council's liability to indictment would apply as would the liability to have the work taken from it and performed at its cost by the Minister under section Bof the Act of 1887. To leave an insecure bridge open for traffic is to court disaster ; closing it altogether, although illegal, is certainly preferable to that." It is therefore evident that local governing bodies have no alternative, but must keep their bridges open and m good repair at whatever cost— funds or no funds. The position is a very curious one no doubt, and it is not surprising to find appended to the above replies a note drawing attention to the fact thst "it has on several recent occasions been remarked by judges of eminence that the liabilities of local authorities m tbese matters are altogether too extensive, and that the Legislature should intervene," but m so doing Messrs White and Co. affirm that " until something is done m that direction the liability of governing bodies to keep their bridges m repair stands m the position above indicated." The foregoing is certainly worth making a note of, and so also is the result of a suit against the Ashley Road Board m which Messrs White and Crylington were the plaintiffs, heard before Mr Whiteford R.M. at Eangiora on Tuesday last, and of which the following summary appears m the"Lyttleton Times"; — "The facts of the case brought out m evidence were as follows. During the heavy rain which took place at the end of July, a road leading to Taaffo's Glen road was so damaged by flood water as to be rendered impassable, and six teams attended by eight men, engaged m carting wood from t^e busb, were stuck up. The attention of the Board was directed to the state of the road on August 2, and on AngUßt-8-tho-£uyoyor and a manilier_jlf_ the Board inspected the spot. Again on. the following day Mr W. C. Nicholls and another member of the Board examined the road, ■ On August 16 a special meeting of the Board was held at which there were present Messrß Barker, Brook, Feathers, and Martii*. After the special business had been disposed of the state of the road m question was drawn attention to, but Mr Barker who was acting as Chairman, pointed out that nothing could be done as the meeting was called for a special purpose. He then left the room and was followed by Mr Brock The other two, who were the junior members of the Board, held a different opinion, however, and after Mr Feathers had voted Mr Martin to the chair they completed the business to their own satisfaction, by instructing the Surveyor to have the necessary repairs done to the road. The Clerk, according to his ovidence, seems to have doubted the authority of the two gentlemen, and on the following day he saw young Orylington just as he was starting to the place where the road was damaged, and asked him to tell White and Crylington, who were two of those stuck up with their teams, and who were on the lookout for the job to repair the damage, that he had no authority to have the road put m order, and any work they might do to it would be at thoir own risk. Young Crylington m his evidence 1 declared, however, that Mr Mutch, the Surveyor, .on meeting with him, asked 1 whether he was going up to the*carop, and on his replying m the affirmative, said, : " You will just save me the bother of going up. Tell White that I have the t authority of the Board to huve the road repaired, and when it is finished I will come up." Crylington delivered this message to White, and the plaintiffs set I to work m good faith and made the 1 road passable. At the next meeting of 3 the Board, however, the resolution r passed by Messrs Martin and Feathers b respecting the road was not confirmed, I and the other members objected to pass ■ the account for the work, the outcome > being the present action." In this case » judgment went for the defendant Board, - tho Resident Magistrate holding that f the two junior members of the Board m i authorising the work m question against * the wish of tho others bad acted m a 1 most improper manner, and remarking 1 that /If two members could meet and 1 give instructions for work to tho value of £4 to be done, they could give orders for all sorts of work. The action of the two gentlemen, m the present case waß extraordinary, to say tho least, and if they attempted anything of tho kind again probably they would find themselves liable for the cost." Uhere can be no doubt as to tho justice of this decision and it thould serve as a caution to over- officious members against taking action without the full authority of the governing body to which they delong.