The Guardian (And Evening Star, with which is incorporated the West Coast Times.) SATURDAY, MARCH 29th, 1924. LOCAL BODY LIABILITY.

Hokitika Guardian, 29 March 1924, Page 2

The Guardian (And Evening Star, with which is incorporated the West Coast Times.) SATURDAY, MARCH 29th, 1924. LOCAL BODY LIABILITY.

At the Supienio Court at Christchurch this week before Mr Justice Reed, a resident proceeded against the Kowai County Council for personal and general damages sustaiued by her on a toad under the care of the Council. The ease presented some interesting features as regards repairs of roads etc., by local bodies, and the liability of the latter in the case of accident under certain eases. For this reason it will be useful public information to review the proceedings at some length. The statement of claim set out that the plaintiff was returning to Christchurch along a road leading from Mount Grey to Rangiora, known as the Mount Grey road, within the Kowai County, on August 12th., 1923, in a ear driven by her husband. Owing to the condition ef the load at Fox’s Creek, the car went over a precipitous hank, and the car and occupants were subjected to a clear drop of about twelve feet, the plaintiff 'tints sustaining injuries Ip) herself and ear. She claimed that a deviation made by the Council was carried out negligently, and no precautions were taken to prevent or wain traffic from using the old road. Damages iis follows "ere claimed: —Personal injuries of £200; nursing expenses £2 2s; damage to wearing apparel, £•> 10s; destruction of camera £2 7s Ou; a total of £209 19s (id. Medical expenses, which were not yet ascertained, were also claimed. The defence was a general denial of negligence. In opening tho case, Air Wilding, for plaintiff, said that, instead of putting a barrier just at the point of danger, it should have been put further on the road. Thus the accident would never have occurred. The evidence led was in support of the foregoing.—Arthur Elliott, husband of the plaintiff, said lie was driving the ear. Iho harrier on the other side of the washout could he seen as soon as they came over the rise, hut they could not see the crook. They naturally thought the danger would be oil the other side of the barrier. The scene of the accident was visited the day after tho accident. Ho could then see that a side road of some form had been made. The evening before they did not see it, or they would have taken it. Another witness. A. Ashworth, farmer, said there was a barrier erected hall a mile north of the washout. He used to light it at night, but was subsequently told that there was no occasion "to light it owing to a side track being availiblc. Witness had no idea who it was that pulled down the harrier. Mr Gresson, for tho local body, moved for a- 11011-suit, or failing that, judgment for the delcndant. He submitted that no evidence had been given whereby plaintiff could expect to succeed. No work done on the ford had anything to do with the cause of the accident. Counsel submitted that as defendants were not bound to erect a barrier at all—they could have left the gap in the road caused by tbo washing awav of the bridge—they oould not be held liable. If they erected a barrier and subsequently elected to take it away they were at liberty to do so at any time provided that they did nothing! to constitute a trap. Another point was that they did not take the harrier away, and did not, in fact, know who did so. He submitted that his Honor had tile power to grant a non-suit at the present stage without putting the other side to tho trouble of calling evidence. Air "Wilding, for plaintiff, contended that having erected the barrier the defendant, had adopted the danger by nutting in a safe track alongside it. The road had been used for three months. Tlio act of the Council had directly caused the road to be used and directly gave the invitation to tbo public to use it. By erecting tho harrier where it had been put up the Council had taken it

upon itself to warn traffic of danger, and had done the work in a negligent manner. The remarks of Justice Heed which constitute his review of the case, and his judgment, are the important parts of the case, interesting alike to the public and local bodies. The law is perfectly clear in this matter, said his Honor. By a long line of cases running back for two or three centuries it has been decided that local bodies are not guilty of non-feasance. There was no liability, his Honour continued on a local body to keep a highway in repair, or to fence a dangerous piece of road, or to put up any notice in respect of it. or to take any precaution for the safety of traffic. Xo doubt this was done in order not to impose an intolerable burden on local bodies in keeping roads in repair. The defendant body had voluntarily put up a barrier some distance away from the wash-out,

hut there was no duty cast upon it to do so. and it was entitled to take the barrier away at any time it desired to do so. In the circumstances there was no necessity for his Honour to reserve

his decision and judgment would accordingly be given for the difendant with costs according to scale. His Honour added that while he felt sympathy for people who met with such a mishap as plaintiff had, still it had to be borne in! mind that- the highways were used subject to any such d'angei's as mi girt exist.

Some of the Canterbury papers are criticising the Railway Department in respect to the lack of enterprise affecting excursions. Now that the Coast is connected with the South Island railway system, it would be worth a little enterprise on the part of the Department to organise excursions to and from the Coast. These could be made to apply both over week-ends or at special holiday times. Week-end trips to the Coast at certain periods of the year would be very popular with holiday makers, and the Coast lias so many attractions that all the resorts could not be exhausted in one or even two or three trips. Once the journey were made and the scenery and change enjoyed, many successive visits would be made as there are so many and varied places of pleasurable resort. In the same way the Coasters might be given the opportunity to make excursions off the Coast for week ends or special occasions, and at cheap fares there would be a considerable exodus to the profit of the Department and the pleasure of the trippers. The Coast needs the advertisement which woitlu be derived by a large influx of holiday makers, and the wider-known its attractions and popularity with visitors, the greater will be the volume of normal traffic, which would lie enhanced under the natural expansion resultant from the increased intercourse between the two sides of the Island. The matter of the excursion trips to and from the Coast should be urged upon the Government authorities till the object is attained.

Acitocos to the management methods of the .N.Z. Railways, an incident happened this week which seems to indicate once again that ordinary business methods can, be at times sadly lacking in the manner in which the coinnicrt ial side of the railways is handled. According to the story that lias come to us, it appears that following tiie sale of stud sheep at Araluira this week, some seven trucks were required on saleday to truck the stock to various purchasers, it happened that some nine sheep trucks were standing at the Three -Mile siding where there are •special facilities for loading sheep. It was intended to appropirate seven trucks, hut the authorities would not permit such ready use of the titicks. The trucks hail to he returned empty to Grey mouth, and the seven would he brought hack empty the next day! It is hal'd to believe such a costly farcical procedure could he possible, but it "as explained the regulations made it necessary, and no one was at hand with decision to say “regulations, ho hanged,’’ and do the right thing in the interests of the taxpayer. So the emptytrucks had their joy trip to Greymouth and were returned the next day. It is too serious to he humorous. There is said to he something similar happening in regal'd to the use of tiuibei waggons, the earning power and use ol which are often limited because ol the circumlocution in carrying out the regulations, and the delay in shunting the precious trucks to the sidings. Ihe loss not only falls on the Department but also on the users who lose valuable time and suffer delay in the execution of orders. \ct the Raiways have a much wanted Commercial Department 1