CLAIM AGAINST HARBOUR BOARD.

Auckland Star, Volume LI, Issue 41, 17 February 1920, Page 5

CLAIM AGAINST HARBOUR BOARD.

I • , DAMAGES FOR ACCIDENT REFUSED. ] . i •Mr. .7 W. Poynton. S.M.. gave juda-T ■ nu'nt. at the Magistrate's Court th:»j, • I morning in a somewhat interesting »~^e.j ] : The plaintiff, Mrs. Annie Mabel James j, ■ i Mr. J. W. Diekson) sought to recover , ' from the Auckland Harbour Roard I Mr. I, 'R. McVeaghi the sum of £100. The:, statement of claim set forth that on . I October >2 defendant advertised a .-ale.!' which plaintiff attended. She slipped onj. 1 some substance on the floor of shed 14. , and fractured her arm. The claim was . '. made up as follow*:—Nursing home , 1 charges €:)0, ]o?s of knitting btisine-s , C2O, costume £->, hospital £.3, doctor £5, , and general damages .£3.5. The Magis- , I trate visited the scene of the accident . j before giving his decision. J His Worship said plaintiff and a com- ] I panion wished to attend a sale in shed . Xo. 14 on the wharf. Neither knew the : way to the upper storey. They did not , I inquire, hut heard a man direct a second- . \ hand dealer how to get there. The two ladies fallowed, amd plaintiff slipped . where .-ome benzine had been spiiied.j ' and fractured her arm. Mr Poynton: _ said the man who gave the direction to I. . the otheT was not an employee of the , J. 'Board, although he wore a peak cap. Where the accident happened was not a place to which the public had right of access. The proper entrance to the shed ( was at the hartour end. where there was a safe staircase leading to the upperj t - floor. His Worship eaid plaintiff could j I not re.over on the above facts. Had the] , Board employed an and the plaintiff was misdirected hy such an official, it would perhaps have been different. Had j the accident occurred at the right enL trancv or on the stairs, the Board would have been liable, but it could not be re-j syonsibie to defendant, who was in thel , position of almost a trespasser where the' accident occurred. The reply was L obvious: "You had no right there: you . were not asked to go in. It ie a dangerous place for many reasons. Benzine . cases often leak, and it is impossible ■ I to prevent the floor being sometimes ; oily. If you enter such a place without | [ authority you must talce the risk in- i . vulved." " His Worship said as he could : not find for plaintiff on the facts, judg- i merit wou l<l be for del en dun t wi 111 cos ts.