LIABILITY OF ROAD BOARDS.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1853, 14 February 1889, Page 4

LIABILITY OF ROAD BOARDS.

At the Resident Magistrate's Court, TimafU, on Tuesday, 0. A. Wray, Esq., R.M. gave judgment iu the case of Dowries v. Levels Road Board, « claim for £25 for the loss of a horse. Mr Hay nppmued for the plaintiff, and Mr White for the defendant. This case had been before tho Court last weak, evidence for both sides being taken. It was shown that on the 11th September last the two Bonß of the plaintiiff were going down a rather steep cutting on the Brothers road, plaintiff's only road to Timaru, when the shaft horse was thrown down—owing to there being a rut in the road 18 inches deep,caused by storm water coursingdown it, and died before it could be extricated from the shafts. His Worship gave the following judgment:—ln this case 1 find that tho road in question is the only road giving accoas to the plaintiff's land to and from town ; that it was repaired by tho defendant board from time to time ; that it forms a part of a surveyed line of road thrown upon the district to keep, but that a deviation had been made from the original lino several years ago ; that the damage complained of took place on the deviation, and was caused by the formation of deep water ruts on the road by means of which the plaintiff's horse aad dray were overturned and the horse killed 5 that the defendant board failed and neglected to see that the rind was kept in a proper state of repair and iu a fairly passable condition for a considerable time before the accident ; that contributory negligence to disentitle the plaintiff from recovering was not shown. The liability of road boards for acts of omission to repair was laid down in Pascoe v. the inhabitants of the Port Levy district, N.Z.L.R., Vol, 11., p. 160, and must govern this case. The main question raised for the defence: that the defendants are not liable owing to the deviation from the original surveyed line of road, has then to be considered. This is a question of low. The original surveyed line was admittedly a road as defined by the Public Works Act of 1876 and 1882, and if so is a district road under the control of the board. By section 87 of the Act of 1876, and section 90 of the Act of 1882, the road board has power, inter alia, to alter the line of road, and 1 think that it cannot be maintained that, having exercised this power, the board by neglecting to obtain a legal title to the deviation (which has been agreed to 10 or .12 years before by owners to be exchanged for the abaudoned portion of the road), is on that account absolved from its duties aad responsiblities. Or, in other words, it would seem that the (alteration of the line of road under the powers of the Public Works Acta caunot alter the position or responsibility of the board hs regards the damage suffvrod by the pl'iiutiff, auoh , liability being merely transferred from j tho abandoned line to the road actually I constructed. This being so, I must hold i that the board is liable for the damnge sustained by the plaintiff in consequence of its neglect to repair. I nasess the horse, which will be the mensure of the damage sustained, at £ls, and give judgment for pLmitiff for that amount and costs.