BROKEN DEMIJOHN

New Zealand Times, Volume LIII, Issue 12619, 2 December 1926, Page 12

BROKEN DEMIJOHN

DAMAGES AWARDED NEGLIGENCE AND NOT LACK OF PACKING “RISK OF STORAGE" ' ’ '* i At the Magistrate's Court yesterday, judgment was given by Mr W. G. Kiddell, S.M.. in the case of Keginald Collins, Limited (Mr P. .S. K. Macassey) ■"* v. Richardson and Company, Limited (Mr H. Evans). • The case was for com* [ ensation for damage to a demijohn of whisky, which was being discharged from the e.s. Putiki, a steamer belonging to the defendants, at Wellington. In October, 1925, plaintiff shipped trom Wellington to Wairoa four demijohns of whisky by defendants’ steamer s.s. Putiki. One of the demijohns of whisky after having been discharged from the ship was shortly afterwards, found broken in the wharf shed at Wairoa, and. the contents lost. Defendants denied liability upon the grounds that the loss' falls within the exceptions contained in paragraph 2 of the bill of lading, the relevant portion of which says: ‘'The company will not *be liable for rush, vermin, leakage, bursting of bags, breakage of eartheuware, etc., or other goods of a brittle ?r ftagile nature from whatsoever cause irising or for loss or damage arising trom insufficiency iu packing or strength of package or of storage afloat or ashore, etc." It was contended for plaintiffs that different considerations applied with respect to the whisky itself and with respect to its earthenware container: that in respect of the whisky the defend- * ants, in order to succeed must prove insufficient packing, i.e,, that the earthenware jar with its wicker-work case was ;in insufficient packing for the whisky; . but that the jar itself must be regarded as a separate item. - This contention would bring the loss of the whisky under one exception, viz., insufficient packing, and the loss of the jar itself under another, viz., earthenware. Jn his judgment Mr. Riddell said he did not think that the whisky and its earthenware container- should be separately regarded, and he was of opinion that the packing consisted of the earthenware jar with its wicker cover, just as if the whisky had been contained in a keg. The evidence of Sinclair, defendants' witness, did not satisfy him Tnat the whisky was insufficiently packed fn view of the evidence to the contrary, and that the nature of the goods could >-e easily seen by those handling them, thus giving reason for tlie expectation that they would be carefully handled and. safely stowed. Tne evidence for plaintiff by men who had' had long experience in handling and shipping demijohns showed that this method of packing spirits results in small losses through breakage. In these circumstances he .thought the evidence showed that the packing was sufficient. . Defendants say further that the exception "risk of storage ashore" operates to free them from liability and the onus lies on plaintiffs of proving negligence on the part of defendants or their servants when discharging plaintiffs' goods or for negligent storage in the wharf shed. On the question' of negligence, if it had been handled and stored with reasonable care the damage should not have occurred, and as no reasonable explanation of the cause of damage could oe given except the negligence of defendants* servants he must find that negligence was proved. Judgment was givens for the plaintiff for the full amount of the claim, £9 4s, with costs .£6 Bs.