Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

FITNESS OF PILOT

Air Company’s Appeal GAUSES OF CRASH £3OOO Damages Claim Further legal argument on the appeal of Dominion Airlines, Ltd., in liquidation, against a judgment of Mr. Justice Reed, in which he awarded £3OOO damages to Mr. William Thomas Strand, mayor of Lower Hutt, was heard before the First and Second Divisions of the Court of Appeal yesterday. The action is a sequel to an aeroplane crash at Wairoa a few days after the Hawke’s Bay earthquake in February, 1931, as a result of which the pilot, Mr. Ivan Louis Kight, and two passengers, one of whom was Mr. William Charles Strand, son of Mr. William Thomas Strand, were killed. On the bench were the Chief Justice, Hon. Sir Michael Myers, Mr. Justice MacGregor, Mr. Justice Ostler, Mr. Justicle Smith, and Mr. Justice Kennedy. Mr. P. B. Cooke, with him Mr. G. G. Watson and Mr. H. J. V. James, appeared for Dominion Airlines, Ltd., and Mr. T. P. Cleary, with him Mr. M. O. Barnett, for the respondent. Case for the Company. Mr. Watson said that the case was one of considerable importance as a claim for the large amount had been stayed pending the disposal of the appeal. As a result of the emergency conditions arising out of the Hawke’s Bay earthquake the appellant company commenced to run three trips daily between Gisborne and Hastings. Mr. Kight, who was a director of the company and was the holder of a B license, as well as a pilot of considerable war experience, relieved the ordinary pilot on one trip each day. It was while the pilot was dropping urgent malls that the accident occurred. The whole of the facts of the case must be considered in the light of the emergency conditions which prevailed. The plaintiff’s case, he said, was based purely on the breach of a statutory duty and not on negligence, as the ticket issued to Mr. Strand specifically barred any such action. The breach of statutory duty alleged against the company was that it had employed a pilot who was not the holder of a B license for the carriage of passengers for hire and that Mr. Kight, the pilot, was medically disqualified from obtaining such a license owing to neurasthenia, three years previous to the accident. Mr. Watson submitted, however, that the plaintiff had to prove affirmatively that the breach of the regulation regarding the B license was an immediate nnd effective cause of Mr. Strand’s death, and that the failure to have a B license either caused or contributed to the accident. It must be established that the accident was brought about by a cause associated with Mr. Kight’s medical history. Findings Clialleuged. The trial Judge, Mr. Watson said, bad made three definite findings of fact, but the evidence did not appear to support them. His Honour had found that the plane stalled through loss of flying speed, whereas, submitted counsel, the balance of evidence clearly showed that the engine had failed through no negligence on the part of the pilot, and no fault on the part of the company. Secondly, his Honour had found that the pilot was endeavouring to turn into the wind, whereas both the eye-witnesses and the expert witnesses were of the opinion that the pilot had to make a forced landing on the road. Finally, it was found as a fact that the plane was being flown at too low an altitude. The experts called by the plaintiffs had given their opinion that 100-150 feet was in the circumstances a safe altitude. The balance of probabilities was clearly in favour of the theory that the crash had been caused by engine failure, which had rendered a forced landing inevitable, said Mr. Watson. There was no evidence, medical or expert, to show that the accident had been caused by the physical or temperamental disability of the pilot. The evidence showed rather that the same accident might have happened to a pilot who was perfect physically. Finally, he contended that as the pilot knew that his life depended upon the carefulness of his flying it was unlikely that he would be negligent as was alleged. The Court adjourned until to-day.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DOM19321013.2.78

Bibliographic details

Dominion, Volume 26, Issue 16, 13 October 1932, Page 9

Word Count
701

FITNESS OF PILOT Dominion, Volume 26, Issue 16, 13 October 1932, Page 9

FITNESS OF PILOT Dominion, Volume 26, Issue 16, 13 October 1932, Page 9

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert