LIABILITIES OF ROAD BOARDS.

Globe, Volume XXI, Issue 1740, 17 September 1879, Page 2

LIABILITIES OF ROAD BOARDS.

The following case was decided on Tuesday at the Rangiora Magistrate’s Court: — J. Wheeler v the Cast Bond Board, R. L. Higgins, chairman, £OO for injuries sustained by reason of the Board having negligently left a rood 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. Mr Clark appeared for plaintiff, Mr Cottrell for defendant. Plaintiff’s case was that he was driving cattle along the road on December 18th, and riding quickly after one, his horse’s fore feet dropped into a ditch on the road, when ho and the animal received the injuries complained of. Dr Burrows attended him four months. During four months he could do no work. Claimed £55 for personal injuries and loss. Valued the marc at £2O. Paid £5 5a for attendance to it, and £lO for a man to take his place in the shop. The road was a chain in width, the culvert across it was 24ft. long. The ditch at the end of the culvert was hidden with grass, and could not bo seen by any one riding quickly. The ditch was over a foot in depth. Dr. Burrows, medical officer to the Oddfellows’ society, gave evidence of the serious nature of plaintiff’s injuries. S. Wilson, who was present at the time of the accident, gave corroborative evidence. S. Mortley made a similar statement. J. Burt gave his opinion that the mare was worth £2O. J. Dickinson said he dug the drain, which was not covered for a length of

20ft. wide and the culvert about 24ft. long. For the defence, the chairman of the Board stated he believed the culvert extended the full width of the formation. At each side there was a catch drain. Did not think anyone could, on December 18th, mistake the formation. Part of the road was in its natural state. The sides of the ditch were sloped away. The Road Board protected bridges and culverts in many oases, but this was not considered a serious _ case. A. Duncan, clerk to the Board, put in a plan of the road. The ditch at the end of culvert was about 10ft. long. There could be no mistake as to the formation. There were no tussocks on the side of the road. Before December 18th could see the drain before coming to it. J. Boulton said he was ten or twelve chains away when the accident happened. Wheeler’s horse was going at the rate of seven miles an hour. He saw him turn off two chains before coming to the culvert on the side of the road, and saw the horse fall. Wheeler passed the culvert forty or fifty yards and then his horse fell. Did not go up to him when he fell. Saw Wilson andjMortley. Valued the mare at £l2 or £l4. W. Morrison gave evidence that he was sent for to set the mare’s shoulder, but considered no bones were broken. It was worth about £ls. Mr Cottrell submitted that the Board had not been shown to have been negligent, and referred to Sutton v Clark, 6 Staunton, 29, and in reference to contributory damage to Radley v Land, N.W. Railway Co., appeal cases 754. Mr Clark contended that the Board’s neglect had] beenj the cause of the accident, and pointed out the reasonableness of plaintiff’s claim. The Bench retired. On returning into Court, the Resident Magistrate said in this case there was no doubt, from the evidence, that plaintiff met with an accident on December 18th. He had now brought a claim against the Board, alleging that the Board ought to have kept a certain road in good order, and as they had not done so, he claimed in respect of damages. _ The evidence, in some points, was conflicting—for instance, though there might bo no attempt on the part of witness Boulton to colour his statement, and if there was any difference between his evidence and that given for the plaintiff, the difference might reasonably be excused to an error of judgment on his n'j as to what happened. The questions he to determine, for he really decided on the case, as it was one of extended jurisdiction, but, still, had consulted his brother justices, were whether the road on which the accident happened was within the Cust district ; next, whether the accident happened at the ditch referred to ; then, whether there was any negligence shown on the part of the Board in not protecting the same, and whether the road as a road for public traffic was in a proper and safe condition. The evidence of Wilson corroborated that of plaintiff, as he stated he saw the horse’s feet marks at the ditch, and detailed the circumstances pretty accurately. Mortley saw the place of the accident, but could not be quite certain as to whether the accident happened a few yards on either side. His impression was that the ditch was the cause of it. Dickenson knew the road, and explained the size of the drain, but did not see the accident. The first difficulty in conflict of testimony was between Boulton’s evidence for the detence and that for plaintiff. He appeared to have been over ten chains away, which was a considerable distance, and looking on possibly from an angle and not very attentively, must have made a mistake in his calculation, so that he was not inclined to place any great weight on his evidence. The road, he concluded, was under the control of the Board. The accident took place at the particular ditch referred to. Now as to whether there was oontributive negligence on plaintiff’s part it did not appear there was any ground for assuming that there was. Had he been riding a nervous horse or been proceeding at an improperly high rate of speed or unable to keep his horse in control, there would then have been a fault on his part. He found, therefore, that plaintiff was using the road in his ordinary business, and there was nothing in his act to render it open to the Board to plead contributive negligence. The Board’s duty was to take every precaution not to leave an open ditch or other like obstruction on a road without protecting the same. Ho agreed with the chairman that these places ought to be protected. But it was not enough to say they ought to be protected. Every care must be taken by Boards to protect the public travelling along the roads from accident by indicating where there were holes, gravel pits, embankments, or excavations, which it was possible for persons using the road either during day or night to fall into. The ditch was across the read, and rank grass would well hide the open gap from view. Therefore, he must hold that the claim was bustained. The only part of the claim in which the Board had the advantage was the fact that the costs for medical attendance had been greatly reduced by the fact that plaintiff was a member of one of those useful societies which did such a large amount of good in the world, and ho had been attended by the medical officer of the Oddfellows’s Lodge, for which services no claim had been presented. The Board was not saddled with this. It was extremely difficult to estimate the damage which a man might sustain through a broken hand, a broken arm, and an injured back. The first item of £55 was, therefore, allowed. The claim for the mare would be reduced to Burt’s valuation of £2O, and £lO was allowed for assistance through the accident. Judgment was, therefore, for plaintiff for £BS and all costs. Mr Cottrell intimated that probably his clients would give notice of appeal