Hotel held liable for man’s injury

Press, Volume CXIV, Issue 33448, 1 February 1974, Page 2

Hotel held liable for man’s injury

N.Z. Press Association)

WELLINGTON, January 31

The Lower Hutt City Council will not have to pay any of the damages in the case of a hotel patron awarded $26,835 after he tripped and fell on an empty flagon on a grass verge on his way to the hotel, and suffered injuries that necessitated amputation of a hand.

Mr Justice Beattie held in a judgment delivered in the ! Supreme Court today that the ■council was entitled to full indemnity against the owner of the Taita Hotel in respect of the jury’s award. Opposite the hotel and ( across the main road was a car park, licensed to the hotel under a deed between lit and the city council. The deed’s general tenor was to permit the hotel to occupy the land at the pleasure of the council for parkI ing by hotel patrons, the judgment said.

The evidence established that at the time of the acci-i dent no tarsealing had beenj done, nor had a concrete; crossing been installed as required. Hotel patrons did use the car park, but the surface was rough. Between the car park and the legal road was a grass verge in which the Post Office had placed a manhole. The man had tripped while crossing the verge. The hotel was sued in negligence, primarily with regard I to its failure to provide a safe access by foot from the parking area to the roadway. The council was blamed for its failure to install the grass verge in such a way as to i avoid erosion abound the manhole, and for leaving the lip of the manhole exposed i when grassing the area. It was also alleged that the .council failed to enforce t against the hotel its obligation to install concrete vehicular access.

“It is quite obvious that the ‘use of the land’ necessarily involved the traversing of the verge area to bring vehicles in,” his Honour said. "The incomplete access was held

bv the jury to be a nuisance, and the plaintiff reasonably used an alternative route.

“In my opinion the claim clearly came from the use of the land. Therefore, the second defendant is entitled to a! full indemnity from the first) defendant as sought in terms' of the notice.”