SUPREME COURT.

Press, Volume LVI, Issue 16853, 5 June 1920, Page 4

SUPREME COURT.

CrVIL SITTINGS. (Befora Lis Honour Mr Justice Herd rem.) A SCHOOLROOM EXPLOSION. Hugh McLean Urquhort, by his guardian, Alsia.ider L*»quha..t, for whom Mr A pew, with him Mr AVanklvn, appeared, toujjht to obtain from the Aahburton High School Board of Governor,; (Mr Purnell} fIOJO damages for the io:<s of on eye, alleged to have resulted from an explosion in the school laboratory. Tho action was heard before his Honour and a jury of twelve, cf which Mr Charles "Webster was foreman. Ti;e ca=o for the p'aiutift, r.s outlined by Mr WankLyn, v." 11.3 that the plain lift was a pupil at the Ashbu'.tou School, and 0:1 or about June :2nd, 1019, an c.vplosien took place during a chemi-try experiment in the school laboratory s.s a result of which, it was aliened, a piece cf g"ln&? entered his left eye, the eiy lit of wliich lis had lost or. «T>. Tho cspirimcnt was concerned with the preparation cf osygen gas by combining ch'orat? anci wan panose dioxide, and it wos alleged that, owinj to an improperly labelled bottle, powdered charcoal was used instead of manganese dioxide. was alleged against defendant, counssl contending that, as T.N.T., tho most pswerful explosive known, could bo prepared from tho chemicals in a school laboratory, the s.andard or care on the part 01 those in cfiarge of auch laboratories should bo extremely lii'-h; it was also contended that tho onus of proving that th::e had been no ne;jli_.enc-e was upon defendant. Incompetence was not alleged against the mcetor, Mr Belshaw, who conducted the experiment, but it who alleged that as mandioxide w::s four times as heavy as powdered charcoal the! master ehor.M have d-tected '.ha difference when mixing the chemicals.

Plaintiff gave evidence ns to how tli3 accident happened, arid other evidence waa given in support of plaintiff's case.

Wm. F. Waiters, headmaster, stated that if tho Board gava specific iuftructiona to abstain fiom certain experiments he would convey tho i list ructions to the chemistry nis'.isler and direct him to obey the Board's instructions. Employment for service was made b;tv,ccn the lioaid and the masters; the Board paid, the masters' salaries; in the last resort witn-cai o.nd lii-i staff were bound to obey tho Board; ami tho power of discharge lay finally with the Board.

To Mr Purnell: As a matter of tact the Board did not interfere with the coursc of instruction in tii-s ■school. The school was oandudbed under tlx' stl'ieimc ci eontiol issued by the- Education Department in accordance with section 02 of the Education Act, 1914. He had found Mr Be'nhaw a careful master, and having enquired into the accident he had no reason t> say that it was- due to Mr liejjligencc. To his Honour: Undev the scheme of control the Education Department had nothin;; to do with making anpoin'iaents of mae'ers; it laid down general principles in regard to the curriculum but did not go into *do-.i ai's. To Mr Alpers: A mi-take was Jiiade in tin laboratory either by putting on a wrong label, or by putting tho wrong chemical into the labelled bolt.e; but he cor.ld not trace tho responsible ng-nt; he would not go so far as to' say that it was due to want of cars on the part of someone. L. Symes, cualified chemist, stated that a demonstrator with any experience would know that ho was not d-ea'ing with manganese dioxide when Lo waa handling po'.'.*dored charcoal. Accurate labelling was of the highest importance in laboratories. A schoolboy enTagod as a 'aboralory boy should not be entrusted with the work of filling bottles with chemicals from bulk except Under careful eup^rivi^ion. A. jr. Wright-, qualified c-licraist, jrave evidence on similar lines.

I Evidence f.s to the injuries received by plamtiU v.'a>3 given by Dr. A. B. O'Brien, and Dr. L. fc>. Manning', both agroein!* that j the injury_ w3g permanent, and that the lo*s of the eight *of one eye would mitigate against the plaintiff's employment in some Government departments. , | Hoi ace Be.~haw, formerly master p t Ashburton, but now a master at Ifawcra, id'snJ tificd the bottle of chemical produced as j containing charcoal from the wrongly labelled bottle in tho school labcra- , tory. i This.closed plaintiff's care. Mr Purnell asked for a non-suit on tho Grounds :—(l)> That there is no evidence to show that the explosion waa toccasioned ; through any negligence on the part of the board, or of any person for whose ; once the Board is responsible, and that the i relation of master and servant does not exist between the IJoard and iig teachers so as to msko tho Boa. d responsible for a toucher e negligence; (2) that tho Boaid is a statutory body subordinate to the Minister of Education, and acting; ministerially in respect of tho management of the Aishburton High School, and is not i- sponsible to the infant plaintiff for any bodily injury he may have sustained by attending the chemistry class at the High School; arid (31 that the only duty, if any, which the defendant owed to the plaintiff wa3 to cxoidse reasonable ca»ro in selecting a competent teacheT of chemistry, and it has not been •shown that defendant fail ad to perform this duty. Counsel submitted that the scheme of control entirely altered the status of the Board as constituted under the special Act of 1878, and cited several cases in which it was held that an officer appointed by a local authority did not otand io flie relation of servant in respect of alleged negligence. Mr Alpers submitted that the points raised Mr Purael'l were met by the judgment in Smith v. Martin and the Kingston-on-Hull Corporation (2 King's Bench, 1911). His Honour reserved the right of Mr Purnell to move for a non-suit. ~ said tllat tJI - defence was that the defendant Board employed careful and compstent teachers, who, ho believed, carvied out their duties cn.refully. Mr Belshow, sines the ncci\!«n+, had jeceivod a hitgher appointment, and waa now scienco master at tho Hawera Technical High Scho:l, and it \v;is submitted thai th-T© vast o negligence on hi* part. The Board, despite a, searching enquiry, had born -unable to discover how it was that a bottde containing a small ouanfify of charcoal was '-abelled

manganese cUoxrK Tho only explanation wr3 -that during the holidays tho school prrmivra were entered by some unauthorised pi--«on or perrons who dH some mischief, and v;ho left the premises by a window in the laboratory; (ho pug-pjestion was that the oivmicaJe had interfered with. Tha Board d?ni«d nr<jligenc«, and, in eCeot, said tha.t it dH not know how tha charcoal s*rt into the bottle ia.belied manganese dioxide.

Evidence in support was <rivon by H. Belshaw, who 'Stated thu.t Jib made the pame experiment Fucc«srfiilly the Friday previoms to the explosion; after the accident he made an examination cf the' chemicals, and found that two bntM»a, labelled manganese dioxide, contained that substance; but two bottles, similarly labelled, contained in one charcoal, and in the other a mixture rf charcoal and manganese dioxi'.le. To Mr Alpers: It would have taken him a year to l?st all the substances- in the school laboratory. when he took it over, to ascertain if the labels correctly described the contents. Afi«r the school premises had boen entered and roi:chief done, h© did -not notice that any of the bottles had been moved.

W. P. V'piters, r-?ca!M, st«.t?d that he meant that ho would convoy thn Boai-d'a instructions n.s to abelaining from certain oxp?rim»nts cr.Jy if the experiments <voie highly dangerous.

Joseph Tn"her, thirteen yar- mem-x-r and twelve years chairmnn of the Board, stated that the Bsn.vd had r.ot interfered, for sevcal years oast, with the teaching it the •chool. He <pive cvidsnco as to the school • remises hnviig beon cnto-rod i-.nd ini=c'ni*f one; the jinitor, Geo. Young, also testified •l this matter.

Connsol addressed the jury. His Honour, suramincc up, -directed the 'my r.ot to award vindictive damages—tho Hoard ought not to be punishe<] for , v hat 'nd happjned. Though the jury mk-ht find hat there had b'vi no one could -urgeat that the Boa.rd would not hrve done its l)-3t to avnid fuch an accident; the ea.m» ■ r»pH~-d. no *!oul't, to th» iresimaster and i"J staff. The damages- claimed were ciairnd ra compensation for the iniuri-s the bov it-tained. His Honour submitted the fol-3v-in;» Awstions t-o the tt'ry:— (!) "Was th« iujtirv which th» plaintiff fii»-'.nir.-ed cursed by the of the de- ■" ndant Board, or bv nerligenco of a iirrant of the said Board. (2) Vrii.it damages, if any, ig tbo i-laintiff ■nH'led to? Aft?r a retirement of about half an hour <:>;? jury retunvJ with tho following ivis" r e ; 'r,• TCo. 1, Yes; No. 2, JCSDO. TTi3 Honour crfiS«d for eecond counsel, fiiini the i at £3 S 3 . of 'he non-suit -joints was rc«v>rred till thi~ afternoon.

The Court adjourned till 10.30 this morn-