SEQUEL TO AN ACCIDENT.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXIX, Issue 238, 5 October 1908, Page 4

SEQUEL TO AN ACCIDENT.

At the Magistrate's Court this morning before Mr C. C. Kettle, SM., Robert Smith, an elderly man, carrying on a small farm in Onehunga, sued Robertson Bros., produce merchants, Newmarket, and Frederick New son, a contractor, for £50 damages in respect of an accident which occurred to him on May 15 last. Mr C. Buddie appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr T. Cotter for defendants, Robertson Bros. Fr6m the evidence it appears that on the date in question building operations were in progress at defendants' shop, Plaintiff entered with the object of making some purchases, and while he was there, a heavy piece of timber fell from above, striking him on the leg, Injuring it. Plaintiff claimed that the falling of the timber was due to negligence of defendants or their servants. Plaintiff said that, as a result of the accident, he had been unable to follow his ordinary work for about a month. He had had to lay up for three days, and had since done a little light work. At the time of the accident, he remarked "This -will be a serious business for mc." Later he heard defendant Xewson say that he did not care twopence if it laid I him up for twelve months. To Mr Cotter: He had not at any time asked Mr Robertson or his manager for an explanation of how the accident occurred. He denied having told defendant Robertson that they would find out what he (witness) wanted them to do from the Court. He was not aware that Newson was a contractor for Mrs Kilgour, the owner of the shop, and was not employed by Robertson. Mr. Cotter moved for a new suit on the grounds that Newson,the contractor, wa« not a servant of defendant, but was a contractor for the owner of the premises. In giving hU decision, his Woiship said that plaintiff knew that a new building was being erected over the old one, and whilst this was in progress business was being carried on in th* old building. Plaintiff, when he entered the shop on May 15, could* see that the building was being reconstructed. His Worship argued that people who invited others to enter their place of business must take care that there was no hidden danger or defect, and if there wae anything in the shape of danger, it was their duty to see that the customer was warned. It was admitted that the man who was -.sp alof| so far as one could see, either bungled or dropped the piece of timber, butthe man was a servant of the contractor, not of defendant. In his Worship's Opinion defendant could not be held responsible for the accident. Plaintiff was non-suited with coits.