LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1182, 18 July 1911, Page 2

LAW REPORTS.

COURT OF APPEAL. OPEN HATCH ON THE S.S. TAINUI. AND A BIG WAVE. Certain aspects of tho question of responsibility for the safely of life and limb on passenger ships were argued before tho Court of Appeal yesterday, in connection with tho case of Hummer v. tho Shaw, Savill, and Albion Company, a suit for damages by way of compensation lor injury sustained on board ship—neglect being alleged. . Florence Louise Dunimcr was a thirdclass passenger for England to New Zealand by tho steamer Tiiinui. One morning, wuen she was on deck-with her three children, a groat wave i-amo aboard ami washed her down into an open liuld. She sustained serious injuries, including curvaturo of the spine. She claimed from the shipping company JJISUO damages, and her husband, Erne=t Edward ituinmer, claimed .£IOOO for 'the loss of her servinw and assistance. The defence was that Mrs. Dumnier had been carried by the defendant company on tho voyage upon tho terms, amongst others, that the defendant company should in no case be liable for any loss or injury arising from negligence in tho navigation of tho steamer, and at tho time she was alleged to have been washed over, the servants of the defendant's company wero enagaged in an act of navigation, namely, the fitting up of a cluster of •electric lights in the bunker hold of tho steamer, which lights wero required for tho purpose of working coal in the hold, and in order to do it it was necessary for tho defendant company, by its servants, to temporarily open such hold. The following issues were put to the special jury, by Mr. Justice Deimistou:— Was the bunker hatch opened for tho purpose of supplying coal for steaming purposes? If so, was tho hatch kept open longer than was necessary for the purpose of supplying lighting to the hold ? Were tho delcndants guilty of negligence in not warning the passengers ol the open hatch, and in not keeping them olf that part of the ship? What damages are the respective plaintiffs entitled to? Tho jury brought in a reply of "Yes" to each.oi the nrst three issues, and on the lourth issue assessed tlie.unmagcs due to the maio piamtilf at i'/00, aud to tho icuiaiu piamtiu at iJIL'oO.

Ai'tjumuuL on law points was reserved for me Court ol Appeal, plaintins proceeding by way of a motion lor juugnient. Wlien the caso came belore tue Court jesie.day their Honours ttio Chiei Justice (Sir. ltobort ftiouv), Sir Josuua Williams, Mr. Justice Denmston. and Mr. Justice Edwards wero on tho bench. Mr. T. W. Stringer, K..C, and with him Mr. J. J. llouguil, appeared ior the plaintiffs, and Air. G. narper, with him Air. .Erie Harper, for the aeleudaut company. '

Argument by counsel for tho plaintiffs tiinieu on the scope of tho term "an act of navigation." It had been admitted, it was argued, that the act of getting coal out of the hold of the vessel was an act incidental to its propulsion, and hence an act of navigation; that tho opening of tiio hutch for tho purpose of illuminating tho hold prior to tho act uf getting out the coal, being also an incident to tho ultimate purpose, was also an act of navigation. While, therefore, the opening of the hold was an act of navigation, it was argued that tho leaving of it open for a longer timo than was necessary which was admitted—would preclude the defendants from pleading absolution lroin liability on tho ground that the accident arose from negligence incidental to an act of navigation.

Mi , . .DougalL addressed the Court on the legality or otherwise of the insertion, of the proviso limiting the ship's liability —on which the. company, based its defence —arguing thntftho'l'fc conld:bo no variation, from a form of passenger contract approved by the Board of Trade.

Mr. G. Harper, for the company, submitted that the work of installing the' light in tho hold was still in progress when the accident occurred, and that therefore the act of navigation had not been completed. With regard to the legality of tho limitation proviso, the Board of Trade regulations forbade tho insertion "on the face of" the ticket of such a provision limiting the ship's liability, but this did not prevent a company from escaping its liability by a proviso endorsed on the back of tho ticket or endorsed on a separate document. The Chief Justice commented that the effect of this would make all legislation on such matters futile.

Mr. Stringer, in the course of his reply, said that the Board of Trade had allowed cabin passengers to contract themselves out of their rights against the ship, but' not so ivith steerage passengers, the presumption being that, steerage passengers, speaking generally, were not so well educated, and therefore needed to be protected from themselves. The Court reserved its decision. SEQUEL TO A COLLISION. WHO WAS LIABLE? j> The Court of Appeal concluded yesterday morning its hearing of the appeal of John Martin Samson, auctioneer, Dunediu, against a Supreme Court decision ordering him to pay .£750 damages to Louisa Hay Aitchison, school teacher, in respect of a collision between appellant's motor-rar and a bicycle ridden by respondent. , On the Bench wero the Chief Justice (Sir Kobert Stout), Mr. Justice Denniston, Mr. Justice Edwards, and Mr. Justice Chapman. ' Counsel were Mr. A. S. Adams, with him Mr. W. G. Hay, for the appellant; Mr. M. Chapman, K.C., with him Mr. A. C. llanlon, for the respondent. Decision was reserved.