BREAKAGE OF GAS MAIN

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 128, 23 February 1921, Page 6

BREAKAGE OF GAS MAIN

CASE IN APPEAL COURT. Judgment has been delivered by Hl-s Honour the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) in an appeal from a decision of Mr. AV. G. Riddell. S.M.. awarding £B7 17s. 4d. damages to the Wellington Gas Company against Hansford and Mills, building contractors. In the court- below, evidence was given to the ellect that the defendants had driven piles into the ground during building operations in Ballance Street, following which on escape of gas was noticed from the mains underneath the building site; and it then appeared that one oi the gas pipes bad been broken. Before the leak could be stopped a large quantity of gas escaped. In dismissing the appeal of the contractors, His Honour stated that he wa> of opinion that the evidence adduced before the Magistrate fully justified his statement that the damage was caused by the appellants action in driving the piles Into the soil, thus disturbing the loud adjoining the main street In which the pipes were laid, and thus assisting in ill - subsidence of that land. His Honour also held that the driving of piles into the ground was in the nature of a trespass, and said that in his opinion an action under that head, and according tn the old procedure, would have succeeded .However, the cause had been proved to have been the appellants’ action in driving piles into loose ground, close to the edge of an excavation, that also being the view of the Magistrate. His Honour added:—“l aleo think that the appellants could not have snstaiffre' their argument that if the ground had not been loose the accident would not have happened, or if the groufid had hec-n stleiK'thened by concrete blocks that it, would not have subsided. The same contention might have been adopted if the land had been cf sand, but the owner of property is entitled to its support, whether it is composed.of sand or rock formation. It is not. necessary to point out. of course, that if an entire property were composed of concrete, then adjoining owners could operate their land right up to the edge of the concrete, and no injury would be sustained and no support would be required: but a landowner is not obliged to make his land impervious to injury from the digging operations of his adjoining owner.”