BAWLE'S CROSSING.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume VII, Issue 1965, 9 October 1888, Page 3

BAWLE'S CROSSING.

At the last meeting of the Uppe Ashburton Road Board a memorial was presented showing the dangerous state of the ford known as Rawle's Crossing,

and asking that steps be taken to make the same fit for traffic The matter is one which urgently requires attention, and it is to be hoped that the Board will at next meeting decide to comply with the request of the memorialists ; indeed, it is a pity that the consideration of the matter should have been delayed for a. month, as an accident may at any

time occur to the loss of limb or life,

besides possibly involving the Board m 1 heavy damages for neglect. 'Jhe ford m question is a crossing over the north ' branch of the Ashburton river on the

j&lford Forest road, at a point distant < about three miles from town. Here the river has encroached upon the north bank, which has been scoured away, there being on the line of the ford an ugly drop of about four feet to the water.

Travellers can only avoid this (except by trespass upon private land), by going . round by Digby's bridge, involving a ditour of perhaps a mile and a half, which is very inconvenient, especially for persons requiring to go to Mount Somers or to the Bush. The bulk of the traffic, indeed, at all times goes by the ford, except, during, say, a dozen days m the year, when the river is not fordable, and when the bridge is necessarily had recourse to, and it would be so serious an inconvenience to a large number of settlers if this part of the road were closed, that a proposal to clobo it, if made as the law provides, would almost certainly be negatired. And without the sanction of the ratepayers the road cannot be formaUy closed, and unless it be so closed the Board is, unless we are misinformed (and we do oot think that we are), responsible for keeping it m safe condition for traffic, the ford included. For wo apprehend that the law as to fords is the same as that as to bridges, and it will be remembered that m a recent article on the responsibilities of governing bodies we snowed that m the case of bridges the body having control is bound to keep them m repair. On that occasion we quoted the opinion of Messrs White, Bmithson, and Baymond, of Timaru, solicitors to the Geraldine County Council, m reply to tbe folloYing questions, viz. ; — " First, what is the nature of the liabilities incurred by the Council m permitting bridges under its control to fall into disrepair. Secondly, what effect will the posting of monitory notices at the end of bridges have m limiting the Council's liability ; and, thirdly, what position will the Council be m if under resolution it absolutely closes the bridges."

To these questions the solicitors m question (Messrs White, Smithson, and Baymond) replied categorically as follows :—

"On the first question vre are o opinion that the Council having the control of the bridges has authority to do till needful repairs, and that as the Legislature has provided the Oouncil with means for effecting such repairs, a duty of properly repairing is cast upon it. For breach of this duty proceedings by way of indictment against the Council could be instituted on behalf of the public, and m the event of a casualty resulting through the disrepair any one Injured m person or property could hold the Council liable ia damages. Moreover, by section 8 of ' The Public W orks Act Amendment Act, 1887,' m the event of the Council rieglecting its duty (he 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 having knowledge ot 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 pro tected 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 Boi the Act of 1887. To leave sn insecure biidge open for traffic is to court disaster ; closing it altogether, although illegal, is certainly preferable to that."

Assuming as we do that the law as to a ford is the same as m regard to a bridge, it is clear that the Road Board cannot afford to neglect the crossing m question. The Board's difficulty m the matter is, we understand, that under ihe Ward system, the works necessary to make the crossing safe would be chargeable to the Ward on this side of the river, whereas those when the work would benefit are mainly residents m the Ward on the other side. That difficulty, however, is surely not insuperable, Failing the possibility of getting the work carried out by the County Council as » County work (which may perhaps be feasible), then it is surely possible to carry out the work at the general charge of the whole road district, or failing this to have the boundaries of the Wards altered, so as to throw the work into the W»rd principally interested. Anyhow, the matter is one which must be arranged for m tome way, or some one of these dftyg there will be ft disaster and unavailing Wgwtfi.