CLAIM AGAINST BOROUGH COUNCIL

Press, Volume LXIX, Issue 20983, 11 October 1933, Page 3

CLAIM AGAINST BOROUGH COUNCIL

ALLEGED UNSAFE STREET MAKING A case of interest to local bodies was heard before Mr C. R. Orr Walker, S.M., at Temuka yesterday afternoon, when Morrison and Sons, butchers, proceeded against the Temuka Borough Council for the sum of £ls 10s allegedly the cost of a plate of glass which was broken by a stone thrown from an indentation in the road. Mr F. J. Smith appeared for th« plaintiffs, and Mr G. J. Walker represented the defendants. The plaintiffs contended that the defendants, by their servants, opened up a tar-sealed road immediately in front of plaintiffs' premises in May, 1931 and that the road was not thereafter properly sealed. In consequence a hole was worn in the road, filled in with earth and loose stones, and on December 17th, 1932, a flying stone from the wheel of a motor-lorry struck the plate-glass window and broke it. Evidence was given that the hole was about 24 feet long and seven to eight inches deep. Since the Present action had been taken the road had been repaired and was standing up to the traffic. Mr Walker submitted for the defence that there was no proof that the stone was actually thrown up by the wheel of the lorry, and also that the stone came from the broken part of the road. The council had tar-sealed the road three weeks after the excavation had been filled in, and as they had done all that was required of them, they were not liable. He contended that the work was properly done. If tne road at this point became broken up it was not on account of faulty workmanship, but because of the exceptionally heavy traffic at this corner where the Temuka to Timaru buses usually pulled up. The magistrate said that the crux of the case was whether the council had properly sealed up the excavation. The plaintiffs' evidence was not conclusive in this respect, and there was also no evidence in plaintiffs' case as to how long the surface of the repaired road lasted. On the other hand the borough foreman had stated that the hole had been filled in, well rammed and asphalted, and three weeks later another three inches of asphalt had been placed in the depression. He held that the work was done in a reasonable and workmanlike manner, and as long as a local body did that it could not be held liable. The fact that the road subsequently disintegrated did not make it liable. If this were so a local body would be for ever liable for a road in disrepair. Judgment would be for the defendants with costs.