SUPREME COURT £34,400 DAMAGES CLAIM AFTER FACTORY FIRE

Press, Volume XCV, Issue 28224, 12 March 1957, Page 3

SUPREME COURT £34,400 DAMAGES CLAIM AFTER FACTORY FIRE

| Wholesale Refrigerators, Ltd.»' of Sockburn, is claiming £34,437 damages from James Mervyn Philp, trading as Uniweld Products, in an action which began in the Supreme Court before Mr Justice Adams and a jury yesterday. The claim arises out of a fire, i which the plaintiff alleges began on the adjoining property owned by Philp .(otherwise known as Philips), on the morning of Sunday, January 22, 1956, and which I gutted its factory, destroying plant and equipment. Mr R. A. Young, and with him Mr H. O. Jacobsen, is appearing for the plaintiff; Mr B. J. Drake, and with him Mr B. McClelland, is appearing for the defendant. Plaintiff alleges that defendant was negligent in that he lit, or permitted to be lit, a fire in the open during a closed fire season; that he failed to extinguish it and take all reasonable precautions; or as an alternative, that he permitted a dangerous thing—a fire—on his property and let it spread to plaintiff’s property as alleged. The total of £34,437 2s 4d claimed as damages is made up as follows:

Total value of buildings, plant, equipment and stock destroyed or damaged by fire, £83,051 7s; amount recovered by insurance, £41,300; amount recovered by sale of salvage, £414 4s 8d; value of plant and equipment reconditioned, £3000; value of stock reconditioned. £3900.

Complete Prohibition There was a complete prohibition on the lighting of fires in Paparua county on that Sunday, said Mr Young in his opening address.

Evidence would be given that a drum, used as an incinerator, stood within a chain of the rear of the defendant’s factory and that the defendant threw into it rubbish which he cleared from his factory that morning, said Mr Young. When the first persons from neighbouring houses arrived the Are was burning fiercely through the grass on defendant’s property, and evidence would be submitted from one of them that the fire was burning in the drum at that time, and that the whole fire was centred on the drum, said Mr Young. The defendant would deny lighting the fire, but that was not material, said Mr Young, as evidence would show that he admitted lighting a fire in the drum on the previous Thursday, three days before, that he put rubbish into the drum on the Sunday at 8 a.m., and that he had no permit to light the fire. On his own admission, therefore, the defendant was guilty, said Mr Young. Eut, irrespective of that negligence, the fire was a nuisance which he did not abate, and so he was again liable. Further, it had been proved in law that a fire was a dangerous thing and, in bringing a dangerous thing on to his properly, the defendant - was liable for any damage it caused, said Mr Young. The plaintiff Would admit that, there were about 100 one-gallon drums of paint in his own factory. but would deny defendant’s allegations that this amounted to negligence, said Mr Young. The paint was some 50 or 60 yards from the drum where it was claimed the fire started, and the fire was burning with such ferocity that it would have consumed anything in its path. Temporary Factory After the fire the plaintiff set up a temporary factory in a store, salvaged, reconditioned and sold all stock, plant and equipment not. required for the re-establishment of the business. The plaintiff was not in a sound financial position at the time of the fire and the loss was an almost crippling blow, said Mr Young. There was no claim by the plaintiff for loss of profits resulting from his loss of business.

Eric Arthur Cooney, superintendent of the Selwyn Plantation Board and rural fire officer for the Paparua County Council, said that he had the sole authority to issue fire permits in the county I at the time of the fire, and he issued none to the defendant. Harry Verner Hughes, a station officer of the Christchurch Fire Board, said that a hot, dry northwest wind of nearly gale force was blowing on the morning of the fire.' As the fire engine on which he was riding passed the Christchurch Public Hospital, he could see thick white smoke ahead. This changed to a darker colour as he approached, indicating that the fire had spread to heavier material. The brigade arrived at 10.18 a.m—eight minutes after the call.

The south end of the building was smoke-logged when he arrived, and could not have been saved, said witness. The fire was bursting through the wall one quarter of the length of the building from the north end and his men did not pass that point. Fire Spread South-west It looked as if the fire had started at the drum which was about 30ft from the south-east corner of the Uniweld factory, continued witness. The fire had spread from the drum south-west towards the plaintiff's factory and south-eastwards to the Blenheim road boundary of the defendant’s property. The fire also burnt through the property of Modern Maisonettes, on the north-east boundary of the defendant’s property. It was quite possible that, had a fire been lit in the drum on the previous Thursday, rubbish put in it on the Sunday would have caught alight from hot ash or a spark, he said. A bucket of water would only cool down the top of the ash and not put it out completely, said the witness, cross-examined by Mr Drake. He had often known such fires to break out again up to three days later. Paint, bitumen or the timber of the building itself could have made the black smoke which was rising from the fire when he arrived, said witness.

Any long dry grass was a fire hazard anywhere and such grass between the boundary fence of the two properties and the plaintiff’s factory would have been such a hazard.

Grass of the length shown in a photograph taken from the northwest end of the plaintiff’s factory would be a fire hazard —and a worse hazard if it were splattered with paint. Paint on the wooden fence would add to the fire hazard. A fire would not spread as quickly if all the windows in a

building were shut, continued the witness. A water sprinkler system would be an advantage in almost any building. The fire brigade would like all buildings to have automatic fire alarms. He understood that there were regulations for the storing of paint. Open pans of bitumen would add to the fire hazard. Re-examined by Mr Young, witness said that a sprinkler system could be effective in a building if a fire originated in that building. Its use would be delayed if the fire came from outside the building. A fire starting from outside the building would not set off the automatic alarm until the heat reached to the sprinkler heads in the ceiling, said witness. Saw Fire in Drum Barnabas Adair Moore, a schoolteacher, and occupier of a nearby property, said that at 10 a.m. he saw a fire burning in the 44-gallon oil drum and a large area of grass alight on the south-east side of the drum. The drum was about a chain from the defendant’s fac-' tory. He was the first person to arrive at the fire, said witness, and at that time the fire had not reached the plaintiff’s property. It was burning easterly across the defendant’s section and burning back towards the wooden paling fence dividing the two properties.

He saw a window frame in the plaintiff’s premises catch alight, said witness to Mr Young. The fire spread very rapidly, burning towards either end of the building. Soon after that the fire brigade arrived.

There were one or two stacks of boxes, a wooden hut, and a wooden lean-to on the northern end of the factory, which was of wood and poilite,' but he did not remember seeing long grass there, said witness, cross-examined by Mr McClelland. He saw an exhaust fan in the wall of the plaintiff’s factory, but no paint marks near it. There was smoke coming from the drum, but he did not look into it. There were one or two explosions once the fire began in the plaintiff's factory and some very dense smoke, continued witness. On a photograph, taken some hours after the outbreak, produced by Mr McClelland, witness marked the drum with a circle and with a cross he marked the position it was in when he arrived at the fire. Leslie Thomas. a woodmerchant. and occupier of a property adjoining the plaintiffs’ property, said to Mr Young that at 9.57 a.m. he went to a hut on the plaintiff's property then occupied by Mr Ted Brinsden, now dead. They went to witness’s home. There was no sign of fire at that time. It was shortly after that when Mr Moore, the previous witness, arrived to ask for something to fight the fire. By that time there was smoke coming from the defendant's property, but no sign of fire on the plaintiff’s .property. Several Explosions Once the flames reached the centre of the roof of the plaintiff’s factory, said witness to Mr McClelland, the fire ‘‘seemed to go all ways.’’ There were several explosions. There was long, dry grass growing at the northern end of the plaintiff’s premises, but he did not know if there was any between that building and the boundary fence. Robert Reginald McSeveney, a painter, and occupier of a nearby property, cross-examined by Mr Drake, said that the defendant kept a dozen sheep on his property occasionally, and also kept a horse. The drum the defendant used as an incinerator "would not be a chain” from the defendant’s factory. It was nearer the boundary with the Modern Maisonettes property than the factory. Leonard Sydney Corner, a senior fireman at the Sockburn Fire Station, Blenheim road, said to Mr Young that the plaintiff’s factory was a "raging inferno” shortly after his arrival. The hearing, which is expected to last at least another two days, will continue this morning.