The Guardian And Evening Star, with which is incorporated the West Coast Times. THURSDAY, AUGUST 13, 1931. LOCAL BODY LIABILITY.

Hokitika Guardian, 13 August 1931, Page 4

The Guardian And Evening Star, with which is incorporated the West Coast Times. THURSDAY, AUGUST 13, 1931. LOCAL BODY LIABILITY.

A case of interest to local bodies, involving the responsibility of a County Council in the Marlborough district, regarding a culvert on which a fatal accident occurred, was determined, recently in favour of the local body. It appears that a road board, erected a culvert in 1912;, and subsequently the road, including the culvert, passed to the care of a County Council, which permitted the culvert to remain in the same condition, as that in which it was taken over. The action was heard in the Supreme Court at Wellington before Justice Blair, 'and the style and standard of tho culvert involved,- came in for criticism, blit it was .established that bridges or culverts similar in construction (rhomboid in shape) were not unusual on country roads. There was some argument on tile fact that the approach to the culvert had been widened by grader . action, but tbo culvert had not been extended, but on this point the court was not satisfied ns to the extent of tho widening of the approach carried out by the grader work.' The point as to the.misfeasance of the road board in constructing the culvert also cropped up, but was not entertained, the court holding that the topical effect of adopting such a doctrine in a comparatively new country like New Zealand would have somewhat startling results. The court held in favour of the local body with costs exceeding £3OO against the plaintiff whose original claim was over £3,000. The local body was not liable for nonfeasance, the essential ingred'ent of which is the element of omis-ion. In the case of roadways, nonfeasance means that the local authority has left undone something which (in view of the users of the road,) it ought to have done. The law is clear, according to the judgment, that local bodies are not liable for damages to users of a road arising from mere nonfeasance, and it is not material to what extent; they may have allowed a road to fall into disrepair. -The essential element in misfeasance, as distinct from nonfeasance, is that the former consists in either the doing of something wrong, in itself, or the doing of something in an improper manner. Something has been done that p.ught not to have hpen done. Misfeasance differs from nonfeasance in that the former is active while the latter is passive, difficulty sometimes arises as to whether a particular set of cur. cumstances is within one or the other category, especially in cases where there is an active element coupled with 'a, passive element as well—such as the case where a local body in doing work omits something that ought to have been done to make it safe. The court instanced that some roads are highly dangerous in parts, and; if (failure to repair or perfect the roads rendered a local body liable an impossible position would arise. It was.held that there was no cause for ’action, and the local body was freed from the heavy damages claimed. The action appears to have been the vehicle for restating the- case very clearly of the liability of a local body in respect to road repairs, and no doubt the information will he studied by those interested in such cases.