HEAVY TRAFFIC.

Clutha Leader, Volume XLVII, Issue 51, 24 December 1920, Page 7

HEAVY TRAFFIC.

DAMAGE TO ROADS. The question of damage to roads by the carting of heavy timber from the sawmills to the railway'in the Gatlins district and coal on the Wangaloa-Kai-tangata .Road has caused considerable difficulty to the Clutha County iC'oun■cil and tho Bruce County 'Council. Jt is evident that other county councils have had the same problem. At * the Sast meeting of Clutha 'County Council the Counties' Association forwarded the opinion of Mr T. F. Martin, counsel to the association, regarding responei'bility.

•In the Akitio County a sa'wmiller commenced a heavy output of timber. The mill owner (producer) said he sold the timber at the mill, and' was not responsible for cartage. The abnormal 'heavy traffic meant damage to the main Pahiatua 'Road.

Mr Martin pointed out that the liability for damage caused to a road toy excessive weight passing along same, or extraordinary traffic thereon, is thrown upon any person- "by whose order or for whose •benefit such weight or traffic has been conducted."

With regard to the question whether it was possible to hold the owner of the timber (purchaser) and the carrier jointly and severally responsible, Mr Martin says that, if the millowner merely sells the timber at his mill and not for delivery at any particular place, he docs not come within the scope of the quoted words. The purchaser is a person "for whose 'benefit" the cartage takes place, but he must, in order to be held liable, 'be shown to have been party or privy to the timber being carried over the particular road injured, if he directs that the timber shall be carried over the road in question he is liable a* being the person "by whose order" the traffic is conducted. The carter is not liable if he merely carted for the purchasers at their instructions. If the carter made a contract for cartage of timber so that it was left to him to select the route and to decide what weight to carry at the one time and generally to conduct the traffic in his own way, he would be liable both as "ordering" the traffic and as to it being for his benefit.

Mr Martin directed attention to a fcase decided 'by Judge Sim. Certain quarry owners contracted to supply stone to certain dock construction contractors, the stone.to ibe delivered at the dock, and the quarry owners employed a carter. The dock contractorsdid not control or direct the mode of transport. The road in question was the only road by which it could <be conveyed to the site. The dock contractors were held liable as persons for whose benefit the traffic was conducted. Judge Sim held that the traffic was for the 'benefit also of the quarry owners, tmt they had not ibeen sued. In regard to the question if any one of the mill owner, carrier or purchaser could toe held responsible, Mr Martin eaya that section 150 oi the Act 'enables the local authority to recover from "any" person '"by whose order" pr "for whose benefit" the traffic is conducted, so that the council could sue any one or more of the persons coining within either or both of thcSe descriptions. The question will ibe considered at a Bpecial ineeting of the 'Clutha County (Council on January 11.