SUPREME COURT MILL SUES AFTER FIRE

Press, Volume CXV, Issue 33974, 15 October 1975, Page 13

SUPREME COURT MILL SUES AFTER FIRE

The fire which destroyed the automated sawmill of McAlpines Sawmilling, Ltd, at Southbrook, near Rangiora, on Saturday morning, September 11, 1971, has ; resulted in a claim for general damages of $243,805 which is being heard in the Supreme ; Court before Mr Justice Roper and a jury.

McAlpines Sawmilling, Ltd, is claiming the damages from Airwork Engineering, Ltd, which has denied liability. The trial is expected to take four days.

Messrs C. B. Atkinson and G. P. F. Thompson appear for McAlpines Sawmilling, Ltd, and Messrs A. D. Holland and I. J. D. Hall for Airwork Engineering, Ltd. Opening the case for the plaintiff, Mr Atkinson said that the mill, built in 1969, was designed to process almost the whole output of the Hanmer State forest. Much of the mill was automatic and it required only a small staff to run it. The mill had a floor area of about 13,500 sq. ft. The fire alarm and prevention system was installed and was regularly maintained by Duplex Fire Alarms, Ltd.

There was an automatic fire detection system with 80 fire detectors on five circuits which worked on an air pressure system. There were also four manual alarm boxes, bells and batteries; five 60ft length hose reels spread around the walls of the mill; and three chemical fire extinguishers. Outside the mill were four hydrants.

In September, 1971, there!i was trouble with the kickers i ■ on the roller conveying sys-11 tern and Airwork Engineer-It ing, Ltd, was employed to carry out modifications. Thej i work was carried out on a ! Saturday morning when the ] mill was not operating, by a , tradesman and an apprentice. 11 They were using gas cut- i ting and welding equipment. ; They swept the area where I they were to work but took i no other precautions such as|; damping down or running! out a hose reel. I j During the first hour or!i so they had one or two ! small fires which the work-!; men, who were alone in the;] mill, put out with a chem-h ical extinguisher. ii About 9.30 a.m., another; : fire started which they at- ’ tempted to put out with the; 1 extinguisher which was; : apparently exhausted by that! l time or could not cope with; the flames. The fire spread < rapidly. The workmen ig- i nored the fire fighting ’ equipment inside the build- ; ing and attempted to use the ’ outside hydrant system, but ; that would not work. The automatic fire alarm 1 system went off and a mem- 1 ber of the brigade who was working nearby was soon at 1 the fire. He switched on the 1 motor for the external hy- 1

| drant system, but the water ’was only available for a matter of seconds before the transformer was burnt out. Water was available through the internal hose reel system but was not used by Airwork’s employ-; ees. The fire brigade used water from a nearby creek but could not prevent the mill from being burnt to the' ground. The brigade concen-, trated on preventing the flames from spreading to; I stacks of timber. j Mr Atkinson said that the 1 plaintiff would prove that the loss in the disastrous fire was caused by the negligence of the defendant comipany’s employees. They had I used flame equipment and could expect showers of i sparks and hot metal. They [were working in a high fire risk area and precautions should have been taken as a matter of course. In its statement of: defence, Airwork Engineer-: ing, Ltd, denied that the fire, was the result of the negli-i gence of its employees but was the result of the negli-j gence of fihe plaintiff com-' pany in failing to provide’ adequate fire protection, to! maintain the equipment which was there, by failing to ensure that there was electricity to operate the outside hydrants, and by

■ using diesel oil to lubricate; i and clean saws and other! i plant.