Seeurity firm found liable after robbery

Press, 5 December 1985, Page 28

Seeurity firm found liable after robbery

PA Dunedin Securitas (N.Z.), Ltd, has been found financially liable for loss of the $53,000 Cadbury Schweppes Hudson payroll taken in the 1979 gunpoint robbery of a security guard in Dunedin. The judgment of Mr Justice Hardie Boys in favour of Cadbury is for the total amount of $53,428, with interest at 11 per cent from April 26, 1979, when the robbery took place. His Honour has ruled that the liability of Securitas was not that of a common carrier (which would have limited liability to $4O) but as a bailee for reward whose liability is unlimited. The claim by Cadbury against Securitas was heard in the High Court in Dunedin in June,

Mr N: S. Marquet and Mr A? J. Logan appeared for Cadbury, Mr C. BJ Atkinson, Q.C., with him Mr J. A. Callaghan, represented Securitas.

Cadbury argued that it had a contract with Securitas for cash collection, but

thjs was denied by Securitas, which admitted being a common carrier but denied liability for the payroll. Whether Securitas was liable to Cadbury, and if so for how much, turned largely on application of the Carriers Act, 1948, His Honour said. The fact that Securitas was carrying payrolls under special security arahgements did not of itself mean that it was not a common carrier of payrolls. Neither was the limited liability of a common carrier incompatible with the carriage of payrolls, any more than of any other articles which, by reason of their value, called for special security. / “The' act expressly provides for avoidance .of the , limitation where the value of i the.: goods so requires,” r his honour said. ■Making particular contracts? tailored to the re? quiremehts of the individual customer- was generally inconsistent with the business of a common carrier, he

In his . opinion, the Carriers Act . did , not apply in the particular case, and the liability ?df ■'■- Securitas’ fell to be determined as that of a bailee for reward. ; To avoid, liability for loss of goods entrusted to his care, a bailee for reward had to prove that the. loss was not the result of; any failure on his part to exercise such care *as : was reasonable in the circumstances.. ->.... ?

It was not for Cadbury to prove: that Securitas was negligent, but Tor Securitas to show that it was not, Ms Honour said. . There was no criticism bf the security guard in this case, and it w|s impossible to say whether use of a second security wpuhj have made any difference, . t The robbery. was ’clearly wellplahned, and.eVen mitji, two guards might still have been successful. > His- honour said .heinad: to conclude : that: Securitas failed to discharge the onus of proof that rested Upon it.''