£5000 CLAIM

Hokitika Guardian, 16 September 1931, Page 3

£SOOO CLAIM

AGAINST AVIATION COY

ECHO OF WAIROA TRAGEDY.

(By Telegraph—Per Press Association)

WELLINGTON, September 15,

The fatal crash near Wairoa. a few days after the Hawkes Bay earthquake, as the result of which the pilot, Ivan Louis Knight, and two passengers, one of whom was William Charles Strand, of Lower Hutt, were killed, was recalled in the Supreme Court to-day, when William Thomas Strand, Mayor bf Lower Hutt, as administrator of his son’s estate, claimed £5,000 damages from the owners of the. machine, the Dominion Airways, Ltd., (in voluntary liquidation) of Wellington. ■

Mr Justice Reed was on the bench

The statement of claim set out •that Ivan Louis Knight, the Pilot, and Managing Director of Dominion Airlines, was not the holder of a B. Pilots’ flying certificate, for flying passengers or goods aircraft, and it was contended that the fact that the aeroplane was not piloted by a pilot with a B. certificate made the Company guilty of a breach of its statutory duty. By reason' 1 of this alleged breach of duty, it was claimed, the aeroplane (a Desoutter- monoplane), was so incompetently and unskilfully handled and piloted by i Knight, that it crashed near Wail roa, and its three occupants were kill- ! ed. In addition, it wa.s alleged, that the monoplane was flown (a) at too low an altitude; (b) at too greatly reduced a speed ; and (c) that | Knight performed, or endeavoured to perform, a turn while flying the monophone at too low an altitude, and at too gifeatly reduced a speed. Tlie defence denied that pursuant to agreement, the defendant Company received William Charles Strand *s a passenger for a fare of £4, and th«t Knight was not the holder of a B. license, and also that the defendant Company was guilty of a breach of its statutory duty. The allegations of negligence were also denied, aim, for an alternative defence, it was claimed that tlie condition of the agreement with Strand was that the defendant should not be liable to any person for any loss or accident arising 'frpm any cause or negligence whatsoever suffered by Strand. It was contended that the terms of the agreement were contained dn-a:’ticket issued by tlie defendant to, and sighed by, Strand. For a furtlier alternative defence, it was submitted that if it wore proved that Knielit was the servant or ncent of the defendant

(which was denied), then the piloting ;of the monoplane in tbe ear/iiige of passengers or goods for Lire was not done by /Knight in the course of

his employment of .agency, and was wholly unauthorised by the defendant being done without the knowledge and authority of the defendant, and contrary to, tlie express .instructions,, .of the defendant.

Evidence for tlie plaintiff was call ed and the case is proceeding.