£4000 CLAIM

Auckland Star, Volume LXXIV, Issue 38, 15 February 1943, Page 4

£4000 CLAIM

BURNS FIRE ECHO

DEATH OF EMPLOYEE

An echo of the large fire in the city on August 19, 1941, known as the John Burns fire, was heard in the Supreme Court to-day when ' the widow of the late Mr. Francis Harold Baker, an employee of John Burns and Co., who received fatal injuries as a result of the fire, claimed through the Public Trustee, the sum of £4050 damages from the Auckland Electric Power Board, the firm of John Burns and Co., Ltd., and the electrical engineering firm of H. K. Brown and Co., Ltd.

Mr. North and Mr. Wallace appeared for the plaintiff, the Public Trustee; Mr. H. P. Richmond and Mr. Rogers appeared for the Power Board; Mr. Johnstone, K.C., and Mr. Goldstine for John Burns and Co.; and Mr. Finlay for H. K. Brown and Co. In opening the case for plaintiff, Mr. North said it was agreed that Mr. Baker was an emplovee of Burns and Co., and that his death resulted from injuries received as a result of the fire. Mr. Baker, said counsel, was a cashier receiving a little over £S a week, and the claim of £4000 was made to financially recoup the widow and two children under 16 years of age. It would be shown that Mr. Baker was on the premises at the time of the fire, and might have escaped immediately, but courageously stayed to put away the firms books, and was trapped. Endeavouring to escape from the first floor by means of a rope, Mr. Baker lost his grip on the rope and fell, sustaining fatal injuries. , A startling defence of contributory negligence was raised, said- counsel, but it was proposed to lead evidence to show that Mr, Baker was "groggy" when he tried to go down by the rope. Alleged Cause of Fire Speaking generally on the claim, counsel said that negligence was alleged against the three defendant parties. His case was that the fire originated "from a small switchboard fire, caused by a fuse when an employee of Brown and Co. called Jack Campbell went to fix a damaged electric point without first having turned off the power at the switchboard. It was alleged that the switchboard fire suddenly, reared up into a great flame by being fanned by a heavy draught causing the fire to go up the wall to the ceiling and an adjacent stairway, cutting off escape by the stair from the first floor which went into flames. Surprisingly small damage by the fire was done to the ground floor and to the switchboard itself, enabling conclusions to be arrived at when the switchboard was examined after the fire. There would no doubt be technicalities discussed in the evidence, but shorn of technicalities the plaintiff's case was that the fire was caused by the electrical installation being in a condition creating electrical hazards. It was alleged that the fuse wire on the switchboard was heavier than the regulations . prescribed, creating greater heat than was safe when it fused, that the cutout was not properly protected, and that the switchboard itself was not covered as required by the safety regulations. It was further alleged that there were not adequate fire escapes provided.

-Distribution of Responsibility As to. responsibility, the plaintiff alleged that the - regulations requiring the Power Board ' to see that every electric installation supplied bv it was free from electrical hazards had not been complied with. It was submitted that alleged breaches of the safety regulations in the wiring of and failure to enclose the .switchboard, alleged wiring permits showing insufficient details, and alleged failure of full inspection— that all these threw responsibility on the board. As a consumer, especially one with a large staff, John Burns and Company, he argued, had the same liability under the regulation, and plaintiff submitted that "the regulations had not been complied with. The placing of the switchboard in a place'which was shown to be dangerous was another point the plaintiff raised against the firm, as well as its common law responsibility for the safety.of its staff. It was claimed that Brown and Company also had responsibility in that it was alleged that an act by an employee of that firinStarted the chain of events which led to the fire. ... - - . (Proceeding.)