Baler fire brings damages

Press, 17 April 1982, Page 5

Baler fire brings damages

A farmer has been awarded damages of $8360 against Dalhoff and King (N.Z.), Ltd, because the firm sold him a baler with a defective bearing which failed and set fire to the machine.

The . damages were awarded to Kenneth Shipley by Mr Justice Cook in a reserved decision given in the High Court Mr I. J. D. Hall appeared for Mr Shipley, and Mr J. B. Stevenson for Dalhoff and King.

Mr Justice Cook, in his decision, said that the claim arose from the destruction by fire of a Welger Round Baler, and the damages sought included not only the baler itself but barley which was burnt when the fire from the baler spread across a field of stubble.

In 1977 Mr Shipley was approached by Mr D. G. King, the sales manager of the agricultural division of Dalhoff and King, who hoped to sell him a baler. A contract of sale was entered into in June and the company stated that it warranted the baler against faulty parts, but nothing to that effect

was expressed in the terms of the contract. Mr King said in evidence that he had informed Mr Shipley that the warranty for the Welger would cover one complete harvest season or 12 calendar months. It covered faulty parts and labour to replace them. It was accepted by Mr King that in purchasing the baler Mr Shipley was relying on his company's skill and judgment. There was no work for the baler immediately and the advantage of buying it in the winter was the reduced price, his Honour said. By the day of the fire, February 14, 1978, the baler had had about 10 days use. It had one or two small functional problems, particularly in relation to the bale-tying mechanism, but nothing of a serious nature. On that day it was being used to bale barley stubble. It was a one-man operation and the baler was drawn by a tractor driven by Mr Shipley's son, Murray. Ahead of the tractor another man was raking the stubble into windrows ready for the baler. Mr Shipley was in a neigh-

bouring field some five chains away when he suddenly noticed a small fire starting up behind the baler. He rushed over and found three or four little fires. Then he noticed that the baler itself was alight. His son. who had left the tractor and run back to help his father with the small fires, had not noticed anything wrong until his father had called out to him.

They were unable to put out the fire, which spread across the paddock and damaged about one-third of 600 sacks of bagged barley which were stacked there. It was clear that the source of the fire must have been heat generated by a component of the baling machine which failed and

that was accepted by Mr King, said his Honour.

A senior member of a firm of engineers considered that the damage done to the housing of a bearing had occurred before the fire and was something he could not have expected in a machine which had had 10 days only of full operation. He expected that it should function for 5000 hours before removal.

It was a sealed bearing and it seemed quite clear that it was defective. His Honour said that he was satisfied that at one end of the principal roller which transmitted the drive to all other rollers there was a defective bearing which must have been defective when the machine was purchased.

When the bearing failed the heat generated set alight the material in the baler. Some pieces must have dropped from the baler and ignited the stubble and then the material remaining in the baler caught fire and caused the virtual destruction of the implement.

His Honour held that the baler was not fit for the purpose for which it was designed and for w’hich it was purchased, and that it was not of merchantable quality because of the defect which existed at the time of sale.

However, he ruled that the loss of the barley could not be regarded as a serious possibility arising from the failure of the bearing which could have been contemplated by the defenda r '

plat* iy the defendant company and no award was made in respect of the barley.