Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

JURY VERDICT SET ASIDE

(New Zealand Press Association) WELLINGTON, May 2. Holding that an action by a fireman against the Hutt Valley and Bays Fire Board for damages arising from serious burns he suffered while fighting a gorse fire was banned under the Fire Services Act, Mr Justice Tompkins, in a judgment delivered in the Supreme Court today, set aside the jury’s verdict and entered judgment for the board.

The jury had awarded Garry Edward Williams, a fire brigadesman, Lower Hutt, £5500 general and £753 special damages. Mr C. H. Arndt appeared for Williams and Mr A. T. Relling, with him Mr H. A. Doogue, for the defendant board. The action arose from the fighting of a gorse fire on

the hill behind Gracefield during which a supply of water failed because a hose was burned through and the plaintiff became surrounded by the fire and was severely burned. The jury found the board negligent in failing to have a pre-determined plan of action to be taken at gorse fires, failing to have sufficient unlined hose reasonably available, and failing to train the plaintiff adequately in rural fire fighting. “I think that the object of the legislature was to free fire authorities, and their officers and firemen, from reliability for damage or injuries due to fire where one of, the causes of the damage or injury is any act or omission of an officer or fireman while attending and fighting a fire,” his Honour said. “Parliament has no doubt amended the nature of the risks and emergencies created by fire, the necessity for quick decisions and action to prevent the spread of fire and the dangers inherent in fire fighting. “It has in my view enacted the provision so as to give fire authorities and officers and members of brigades complete freedom of action in fire fighting to do what seems best to them in the circumstances of any particular fire without involving the authority or the brigadesmen in the risk of liability for what they have done in good faith in fighting a fire,” he said.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19660503.2.43

Bibliographic details

Press, Volume CV, Issue 31049, 3 May 1966, Page 3

Word Count
347

JURY VERDICT SET ASIDE Press, Volume CV, Issue 31049, 3 May 1966, Page 3

JURY VERDICT SET ASIDE Press, Volume CV, Issue 31049, 3 May 1966, Page 3

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert