CAR DAMAGED.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVIII, Issue 290, 7 December 1937, Page 11

CAR DAMAGED.

AT HOTEL GARAGE.

QUESTION OF LIABILITY.

WOMAN MOTORIST'S CLAIM.

The responsibility of garage proprietors for damage to garaged cars in certain conditions was involved in a oaee of considerable interest to motor car owners, Peggy Marie Beaumont v. Hotel Titirangi, Ltd., heard this morning before Mr. C. R. Or Walker. S.M. It was a claim for £!) 7/6 for replacing part* stolen from a car left in the garage of the Hotel Titirangi on the night of .li.lv 2.-» last.

Peggy Marie Beaumont stated that on Saturday. July 2">. she drove her father and mother in her car to the hotel, where they proposed to spend a fjuiet week-end. About four o'clock that afternoon the car was garaged at the hotel. On Sunday afternoon some parts of the car engine were found to have been removed. There was a notice in the garage "All Care Taken, but Xo Responsibility." No Insurance Claim. Walter Cyril Beaumont, father of plaintiff, stated that on inquiry at the Hotel orlice before he garaged the car on the Saturday he was informed that the garage would be locked at a reasonable hour in the evening. It was a garage to accommodate several cars and had a door which rolled down. Witness locked the car doors. On fhe Sunday afternoon he found that several parts were missing from the engine of the car. The matter was put in the hands of the police and be approached the insurance company, 'which would not reimburse him.

In reply to Mr. P. C. Griffiths, for defendant, he said the insurance comptiiiv did not reimburse him, though he was insured against theft. He was informed that if the car had been taken :i wa v his insurance would have been operative, but as the car had not been moved the insurance clause was not operative. The car was left for some hours in daylight outside the main entrance of the hotel on the Saturday afternoon, but it was locked and in view of people coining and going. No Hotel Responsibility. Leonard J. Shrubsall, managing director of Hotel Titirangi. Ltd.. stated that the garage was capable of accommodating about l.'i cars. There was a charge for using the garage, to which there were four entrances —a lift, two stairways, and the outside door. It was a general practice to close the outside door of the garage at night. Usually witness attended to that himself, but at times the driver of the last car in did it. The door didn't lock, but it was very heavy and noisy. To Mr. G. F. Keith, for plaintiff, defendant stated that he did not guarantee the safety of the cars put in the garage, but it was for the convenience of the guests. The hotel was an A.A. hotel, not licensed premises, but marked first-class.

To His Worship: On the night in question the garage wae open at 1 a.m. because some late guests were expected — a honeymoon couple who did not arrive. Witness , *on that night undertook to sit up and shut the door of the garage when the expected guests arrived. The son was not on the hotel staff, but had only undertaken to relieve witness on that occasion. It wae in consequence of expecting the guest* that his son noticed the "noise that took him to the garage at 1 a.m. Alan Shrubsall, eon of the previous witness, testified to visiting the garage about 1 a.m. and seeing plaintiff's car standing behind three other cars. He then closed the outside door, feeling that the expected visitors would not then arrive. The two garage lights were on when he went in at 1 a.m.

Legal argument on the points involved is proceeding.