LEAKY SKYLIGHTS.

Auckland Star, Volume L, Issue 222, 18 September 1919, Page 5

LEAKY SKYLIGHTS.

HARBOUR BOARD'S LIABILITY. FOR STATE OF WHARF SHEDS. ■Mr. J. W. Poynton, S.M., gave a decision of considerable importance to the mercantile community at the Magistrate'- Court to-day It was in the case of the National Trading Co. (Mr. Ziman) v. Auckland Harbour Board (Mr. Bagnail). This was a claim to recover £20 for damages by water to goods left in one of the sheds on the wharf. 'His Worship said the shed in question was owned by the defendants, and was for the convenience of shippers of goods and owners of vessels. Goods placed in the shed were not under the control of. the Board, which disclaimed liability ex-1 ! cepting to keep the shed in repair, and locked at night. The goods were taken out by the consignees on the order of I the shipping clerks, and not the Board's ' employees. Free storage was allowed for 24 hours, after which a charge was j made. When storage was charged, the I goods were placed in other sheds. Plaintiff's goods were damaged by leakage | through the shed skylights. The Board i claimed protection afforded by one of 1 its by-laws, and also that no charge was made for the storage of goods in the | shed, and whilst there such goods were !in the custody of others. j The Magistrate said that some of the; I panes of glass in the skylights was I broke- and had been repaired with calico! and gold size. In wet weather they' leaked _adly. The question was whether j under such circumstances the Board was liable for goods spoiled by such leakage.' His Wonship dealt with the degrees of I care required in various cases regarding the custody of goods, and said the least liability of all rested on the person, the owner of property made use of without 1 charge by another at the owner's invitation or by his permission. Mr. Poynton held that the owner was expected to take precautions sufficient to ensure that his property shall be reasonably safe for the uoe to which it has been put. In Hals-: bury _ "Laws of England" it stated: "The standard of reasonableness natur-! ally must vary according to the circumstances of the case, the trust imposed, and the skill and appliances at the dis-j posal of the person to whom another confides a duty." His Worship nointed out that the Harbour Board had large ' revenues at its disposal, had duties imposed on it by statute, compelled users lof the wharves to use this shed, and I clearly was under a duty to provide reasonable safety for goods placed therein. Mr. Poynton said he had visited I the shed, and found eight out of fourteen skylight- were leaking, some slightly, but three copiously. Any juryj viewing the premises would certainly! say that the shed was not "reasonably safe" for goods likely to be damaged by water. He must therefore find on the facts in favour of the plaintiff. The claim, however, was for too much. The damage to the sodium bicarbonate would not be more than 10/, an additional 20/ would be allowed for,,labour required in re-sorting and drying. Judgment was therefore given for £3 5/ for flour destroyed, and £1 10/ in respect to the bicarbonate of soda, with costs. Security 'for appeal was fixed at £7 7/, plus amount of judgment and costs. Mr. Poynton added: "I am of opinion that if notices were posted in the shed stating that eoods were not to be piaced under skylights owing to their leaky condition, the Board would be free of liability."