FIRE ENGINE AND CAB

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIV, Issue 60, 1 September 1911, Page 5

FIRE ENGINE AND CAB

RESPONSIBILITY OF FIRE EOAM. By Telegraph—fress Association. Christchiireh, Last Night. Mr. Justice Denniston reserved judgment in the appeal of the Christchureh Fire Board against the decision of the magistrate, who held that the Board was responsible for damages done by the brigade, whilst on the way to a fire, to a cabman whose cab was wrecked. For the appellant Board, it was contended that the superintendent and his men were statutory officers doing a, statutory duty imposed on them, not bv the Boiml, but by the Act. Counsel also contended that it was never intended that the funds of the Board were to be made liable in respect to accidents of this sort. When the Board had appointed officers and provided an efficient brigade, it had no further duty. With regard to the particular duties which were imposed by the Act on the superintendent and brigade under the Act, the brigade had to proceed with all possible speed' to the place at which a fire occurred. It was important to note that there was no provision ill the Act, nor in the Victorian Act, oil which it was based, for giving notice of action for damages, and no provision limiting the board's liability. Such provisions were contained in the Tramway Act, the liability of the board being limited to £2OOO. His Honor remarked that it would be extraordinary if a tramway board could kill a £IO,OOO citizen and- be liable lor only £*2ooo. Mr. Harper replied that a similar limitation was made in the liability of the railways after the Rakaia accident. Bis Honor rejoined that instead of the railways being improved, the liability of the Department was limited. For the respondent, it was argued that the Board was 'liable for the Acta of its servants. The board had a duty put on it, and was presumed to be doing the work itself. It had power to appoint and remove its officers and servants. A driver was appointed by the board, and his wages were paid by the board until he got to the fire. He was under the control of the board. There was nothing in the Statute to show that the control of the brigade was taken out of the hands of the board until they reached the fire. The superintendent could not be held responsible for the negligence of his men, so that if the board wore not liable the responsibility would be thrown back to the driver. x