AEROPLANE CRASH

Dominion, Volume 25, Issue 248, 15 July 1932, Page 11

AEROPLANE CRASH

Fatality at Wairoa HEARING OF APPEAL Court Reserves Decision Hearing of the appeal by Dominion Airlines, Ltd. (in liquidation), against a decision by Mr. Justice Reed, and in which William Thomas Strand, Mayor of Lower Hutt, is the respondent, was concluded in the Court of Appeal yesterday, judgment being reserved. The Court comprised the Chief Justice, Right Hon. Sir Michael Myers, Mr. Justice Adams, Mr. Justice Ostler, and Mr. Justice Smith. The appeal was the outcome of an action heard in the. Supreme Court in October last, when Mr. Justice Reed awarded respondent £3OOO damages against the appellant company. The Supreme Court case had its origin in a fatal aeroplane accident near Wairoa a few days after the Hawke’s Bay earthquake, as a result of which the pilot, Ivan Louis Kight, and two passengers, one of whom was William Charles Strand, son of William Thomas Strand, were killed. The present respondent, who was the plaintiff in the Supreme Court action, brought the action against Dominion Airlines, Ltd., as administrator of his son’s estate, alleging a breach of the aviation regulations and negligence on the part of Kight. Counsel Resume Addresses. Counsel for respondent, continuing his address to the Court yesterday, said that the special regulations in respect of B licenses were intended to ensure the safety of passengers. They did not cover the pilot, or anyone who might be his guest. They only applied to persons who paid for their seats. The, class of goods carried by aeroplanes might be very valuable, such as jewels and specie, and-the regulations covered the safety of the owners of such goods who might accompany them. Clause 11 of schedule 2 dealt with the- granting of .licenses to A and B pilots.. Schedule 3 made special provision for the air worthiness of craft to carry passengers. It was laid down that the machines must be passed by competent inspectors, and tests must be carried out before e,ach flight. He submitted that these regulations could, only be aimed at the protection of persons below the aircraft or in the machines themselves. Passengers by air were a special class according to the regulations. Mr. Justice Adams: Ybu contend that as soon as a person steps into an aeroplane he enters this special class, and when he steps out of the machine he steps out of it again. Counsel maintained that passengers by air were a special class; they were a section of the public. The object of the aviation . regulations was the protection of passengers, whereas the motor regulations aimed solely at the regulation of traffic. The motor regulations permitted a deviation in the case of emergency without civil liability, but no deviation was allowed in the case of the aviation regulations.

Mr. Justice Adams said there was evidence that the pilot suffered from neurasthenia, but was there any evidence which the Court could go upon that . the accident ■ had been caused through this neurasthenia ?

Mr. Justice Ostler said that from the evidence which had been before the courts in recent years neurasthenia could be taken to connote nervous instability, and nervous instability would connote failure to act quickly in the case of emergency. With regard to the question of ultra vires which had ben raised by counsel for appellant, counsel pointed out that the Act provided for forms of pilots’ certificates. The failure of the Act to make provision for civil liability was irrelevant. The Act was very much in the nature of an Order-in-Council to the Governor-Genera) to make regulations. Mr, Justice Smith asked if it would be reasonable to assume that the Governor-General had power to make regulations which would practically prevent flying in New Zealand. “Clear and Able Argument.” The Chief Justice (to counsel for the respondent) : Whether you win or whether you fail, the Court thanks you for the very clear and able manner in which you have presented■ your argument. Third counsel for the appellant contended that persons on the ground were just as much protected by the Act as passengers of an aeroplane. Plaintiff's own expert had said that pilots in dropping mails had come down to within 50 feet of the ground. If there had been any negligence, he submitted that it was only a case of ordinary negligence. The onus was clearly on the respondent to prove that there was no reason why the aeroplane had crashed on the road at Wairoa. There was no evidence to show that at the date of the accident, Kight was suffering from neurasthenia. He submitted that cnee the board had appointed the medical man, and the examination had taken place, there was no jurisdiction by the board or by anyone else to require a further examination. Having issued a license, the board could suspend any license if they had reason to think that the licensee's health had become Impaired. Kight passed the medical test at Palmerston North, and that was all that was require’ It appeared quite plain that the Air Board had appointed the medical men to examine Kight, and it was evident that these persons had passed him, and he. therefore, became entitled to his medical certificate. Judgment was reserved.