Fire Escape Said To Be Below Standard

Press, Volume CII, Issue 30287, 13 November 1963, Page 18

Fire Escape Said To Be Below Standard

(New Zealand Press Association) WELLINGTON, November 12. Evidence was given today in a Supreme Court damages claim against the St. Matthew’s Collegiate School’s Trust Board, Masterton, that a fire escape from which a former school matron fell did not meet up-to-date standard specifications.

Myrtle Olive McFarlane, aged 54, married, of Masterton, a former matron of St. Matthew’s College for Girls, is claiming £20,000 general and £lO3O special damages for an accident when she fell from a fire escape at the college on October 26, 1962. She claims she was carrying out instructions to ensure the comfort and safety of the pupils at the college

and to restore order and discipline after a disturbance centred on the use by some of the pupils of the fire escape as a means of breaking bounds. She alleges the fire escape was defective in six different respects. The defendant board denies negligence and claims alternatively that the accident was caused or contributed to by the plaintiff's own negligence. The plaintiff claims she suffered extensive fractures and shattering of the skull, concussion of the brain, a fracture of the nose, and permanent mental impairment and damage. She claims she is totally blind in the right eye and almost totally blind in the left eye and has lost control of her right hand and almost totally lost control of her left hand. Mr Justice Hutchison is on the bench. Mr F. D. O'Flynn, with him Mr R. J. Graham, is appearing for McFarlane, and Mr N. A. Morrison, with him Mr W. Dent, for the defendant board. No Black-outs Mrs McFarlane said in evidence she had never had epileptic fits or black-outs in the past. She did not think she had ever had any treatment for blood pressure. Referring to the night of the accident, she said she had no recollection of the fall or of the accident itself. Her first recollection was waking up and being got out of bed in the Masterton Hospital. She did not know how much later that was, but it was some weeks. Mrs McFarlane said she did not remember what shoes she was wearing when she returned to the school on the night of the accident. Witness said her sphere of duty was on the first' floor and her duties occupied her there for some eight months before the accident. She had seen the fire escape platform on many occasions. Mr Morrison: And you knew exactly what it was like?—l knew it was a fire escape. Would you agree that if care is taken they (the doors to the fire escape) are safe

for anyone stepping on to the platform?—-I don’t know. I can't recollect at any time stepping out on the platform. No Knowledge Witness said she could not disagree with evidence that she had been in her stockinged feet as she did not know. She had heard the evidence she opened the door and stepped out on' to the platform but had no idea of the reason she went out there. She did not recollect girls coming to knock on her door. You have heard it said it took some time to draw your attention to the knocking?—

Yes. You heard the evidence of Dr. Bergin in relation to the entry in the Dunedin Hospital notes as to your history of epilepsy. Do you deny that?—Quite definitely. You agree that information must have come from you?— I don’t really, because 1 don't think I could possibly have said it. We have, it from Dr. Bergin the note was recorded by Mr James the head of the neurosurgical unit in Dunedin and he was in charge of you?—Yes. And he saw you on a number of occasions? —Yes. If he recorded that note surely he must have got the information from you?—l’m sure I would not have said it. It wouldn’t be possible for me to be an epileptic and not know it. You deny anything of that nature at all. dizziness or fainting before the accident? —Yes. Architect’s Evidence Trevor Hamilton Daniel, architect of the school board, said in evidence he was, not acting as architect to the board in 1958 when the dormitory in question was erected. If he had been asked as an architect to erect a fire escape on the new building we would have not suggested the one which was installed. “I would have put up a fire escape that complied with the relevant section of the New Zealand Standard Code,” he said. “I am familiar with the escape in question. The height of the guard rail above the platform is 2ft 6in. In my opinion that is not high enough for safety.” Daniel said the New Zealand standard specifications were a model for local-body by-laws. The Masterton Borough Council had adopted the by-law in April, 1959, which said that a guard rail should be 3ft high around fire escapes. “ft would not have been difficult or particularly costly to raise the existing rail six inches,” he said. New Zealand's former Chief Fire Services Officer, Thomas Arthur Varley, said he had

inspected the escape. The rail around the platform was very low indeed.

“The rai] does not comply with the present by-law. which requires a height of 3ft," he said. “Also, the escape does not comply with the adopted standard code in several respects. “Apart from the height of the railing, the height of it is insufficient to enable a firm grip. Instead of gripping it you come into contact with it, making it unsafe in this respect."

Witness said there should also be protection on the space between the rail and the platform. “In this case it was open. The filling of the gap would prevent slipping through." Reduced Vision Roderick Graeme Stuart Fergusson, a Wellington eye specialist, said the plaintiff was blind in the right eye and had seriously reduced vision in the left’

“By this I mean when she looks at an object she has lost a considerable amount of the surroundings of that object. It is not curable in any way." At that moment, he said, the plaintiff was certainly not safe on the streets on her own. Guy Piermont Hallwright, .consultant physician and senior physician at Wellington Hospital, told the Court that the plaintiff’s blood pressure, given in evidence as “210 systolic over 130 diostolic," was high. “From my point of view 1 would regard that reading as justifying some expert treatment medically. But I do not regard fainting fits and giddiness as symptoms relating to high blood pressure.” The case will continue tomorrow.