The Akaroa Mail. FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 19.

Akaroa Mail and Banks Peninsula Advertiser, Volume 4, Issue 331, 19 September 1879, Page 2

The Akaroa Mail. FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 19.

A case involving a claim against a Road Board was heard lately at the Rangiora E. M. Court. The action was- brought by a Mr J. Wheeler against the Oust Road Board. Plaintiff claimed £90 for injuries sustained by reason of the Board having negligently left a road in the Oust district in a dangerous state by leaving an open drain across same, injuries to horse, and wages paid by reason of plaintiff's inability to attend to his business. The questions at issue were, whether the accident had been caused by negligence on the part of defendants in leaving the drain open and unguarded, and whether there had been contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff. The Court decided in favor of the plaintiff on both issues, and awarded damages to the/amount of £85 and costs. We are afraid that considerable misconception prevails as to the law relating to accidents of 'this description. Some members of local bodies appear to ignore the responsibility evidently cast upon them by law of seeing that all parts of the 'roads under their jurisdiction are properly protected, and the safety of the travelling public considered. On the other hand, any person meeting with an accident and claiming against a public' body, must be preprepared to show that he has used all due care himself. / If, for example, he has been riding or driving furiously, or has lost control of his horse or in any way might have avoided the accident but for his own fault, he will be debarred from recovering. A further feature presents itself in this case, and though the issue was not raised, we have no doubt that on some other occasion it may be. In giving judgment, the Resident Magistrate, Mr Whitefoord, said : — "He would remark that owing to his (plaintiff's) own prudence and forethought the Board had one censiderable advantage in the fact of. not having a claim made upon them for medical attendance. By the fact of the plaintiff being a member of the Oddfellows' Society, which body he said were doing so much good, the claim had been made much lighter than it would otherwise have been, and he took the opportunity cf saying that it behoved every young man to join a Society, which placed a man in an independent position when he was by an accident or otherwise incapacitated for work." Now if the Board are held responsible for the results of the accident as affecting the plaintiff himself, it is hard to see but thdt they are also liable for expenses to which a third party has been put in consequence of it. From this point of view the Oddfellows' Society ought to be recouped the outlay they have been put to owing to an accident which it is found resulted from the negligence of a Road Board, and not in the ordinary course of nature. The point has frequently been raised in England, and if we mistake not it has been decided there that Friendly Societies have at least an equitable claim even against the Poor Law authorities on account of those of their members who, but for the Societies, Would become chargeable to the rates. As these Societies are trustees of funds provided by the careful and provident members of the community, it would be well that should take every means to guard those funds. We commend his Worship's remarks to those of our young men (a far too numerous class) who have not as yet taken the prudent step of enrolling themselves under the banner of one' or other of these excellent instltions.