A WRECKED CAB.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1221, 1 September 1911, Page 7

A WRECKED CAB.

■ COLLISION WITH A FIRE ENGINE, AN IMPORTANT LEGAL POINT. (By Telegraph.—Press Association.) Christchurch, August 31. The appeal ol' tho Christchurch I'iro Board against the decision of tho Stipendiary Magistrate holdinff tho board liable for damans claimed by l\ii!iain Robinson. a cabman, whose cab was wrecked in a collision with a fire engine which was proceeding to a fire, was heard before Mr. Juslico Denniston this morning. Mr. Goo. Harper appeared for tho appellant board, and Mr. Murphy (instructed by Messrs. Smith, Son and Mcsley) for respondent. Mr. Harper said that the question in the case was whether tho superintendent and his men in charge of a fire engine proceeding to a fire were under the, control of tho board as servants so as to make tlio board liable for their negligent acts. The magistrate had held that the board was liable, it was not a question of by-laws. It was admitted that tho engine took the wrong side of the road to get round as quickly as possible. The contention of the appellant board was that the superintendent and his men were statutory officers doing a statutory duty imposed on them, not by the board, but by the Act. Counsel contended that it was never intended that the funds of the board were to be made 'liable in respect to accidents of this sort. When the board had appointed officers and provided an efficient brigado it had no further duty with regard to the particular duties which were imposed by the Act on the superintendent and the brigade. Under the Act the brigade had to proceed with all possible speed to the place at which a fire occurred. It was important to note that there was no provision in the Act, nor in tho Victorian Act, on which it was based for giving notice of action for damages, and no,provision limiting the board's liability. These were important provisions. If it was intended that the board was to be liable as a master for the negligence of its servants such provisions were contained in the Tramway Act, the liability of the board being limited to £2000. His Honour remarksd that it would be extraordinary if the Tramway Board could kill a ",£IO,OOO citizen and be liable for only £2000. ..... Mr. Harper replied that a similar limitation was made in the liability of railways after the Rakaia accident. , His Honour rejoined that instead of the railways being improved the liability of the Department, was limited. Mr. Harper proceeded to quote a New South Wales case, in which it was held that a superintendent who had negligently pulled down a wall was liable personally, although he was a statutory officer. Thero was no suggestion .there that , the board could bo proceeded against on. account of his personal negligence. He also quoted other cases to show that hospital boards wero not liable for negligence of their doctors, provided they appoiuted a competent man, and provided proper apparatus. A doctor could be proceeded against personally for negligence. Counsel also pointed out that in a number of American cases it had been held that a city was not liable for the acts of its fire department, unless expressly made so. Tho work dono by tho fire brigade was not for the benefit or -profit of tho fire board, but for tho benefit of the community which made all tho difference when discussing the liability of the board. f)n behalf of respondent, Mr. Murphy said that, in regard to the finance of tho board, the board was required to send to the Minister an estimate of its expenditure for the year. The estimate might include any deficiency for .the. previous vcar. There was, he admitted, ample protection for the superintendent and tlio brigade. A lire superintendent, was thero acting in a semi-judicial position. • His Honour asked how Mr. Murphy could compel payment by the board if he succeeded. Suppose a man got <010,000 damages against the board. The board's source of revenue was limited, and its estimate of expenditure had to be approved by the Minister. The amount could only be sent forward as a deficiency from the previous year, and even then the Minister might strike it. out. Mr. Murphy said that if tho Court decided that the amonnt was owing, the Minister would pass it. Respondent, had to take that risk. There was only .015 involved. His Honour remarked that there _was a well-known ease in which a Minister struck a liability out of the estimates. Mr. Murphy said that resnondent would have to take" his chance. The board had to provide oificient equipment, an efficient suDerintendent, and efficient drivers to drivo the engine to fires. He contended that tho hoard was liable for the acts of its servants. The board had a duty put on it, and was presnmrd to bo doing tho work itself. Tt had the power to appoint and remove its officers and servants. Tho driver was appointed by tho board, and his wages were paid by the board. Until he got to the fire he was under the control of the board. There was nothing in the statute to show' that the control of the brigade was taken out of the hands of board until they, reached the fire. The superintendent coukl not be held responsible for negligence of the men. so if the board were not liable respondent would bo thrown back to the driver. The question should not be decided on any consideration whether the brigade were performing public, duties, but on.-whether thev wero servants of and accountable to the hoard. Mr. Harper, in reply, said _ that he wished to point out that getting to a fire was a very essential part of the work of the brigade. His Honour remarked that the case was a very important one, and lie would reserve his decision.