CHARGE AGAINST COMPANY.

Dominion, Volume 30, Issue 265, 5 August 1937, Page 6

CHARGE AGAINST COMPANY.

Falling Hatch-beam MAGISTRATE RESERVES DECISION After hearing addresses from counsel in the Magistrate’s Court, 'Wellington, Mr. J. H. Luxford, S.M., reserved his decision yesterday in a charge brought, and heard last week, by an official of the Marine Department against the New Zealand Shipping Company for alleged failure to follow the harbour regulations. . The charge arose out of an accident in which a stevedore was killed when in the hold of the Federal Steam Navigation Company’s motor-ship Durham, while loading aperations were in progress, a steel hatch-beam tailing on Mr. Shorland, for the company, submitted that as all acts of commission should require proof, this implied that the general principle could apply to acts of omission. He contended the wording of the regulation did not apply to such a case, and that therefore the company could .not be absolutely 11 The magistrate observed that his finding of fact was to the effect that both bolts had been placed in the hatch-beam m the morning, but that in some unknown way the bolt securing the beam on the port side had been removed.. Mr Shorland submitted it had been established that the bolts were put m, and counsel was entitled to believe that t e man who did so thought up to the time of the accident that both bolts were m Pl The magistrate said he took it that the man who had originally placed the bolts in the beam honestly believed they were still there. It was further submitted by Mr. bhorland that the word “person” in the regulation did not include a company. He submitted that there were no reasons of expediency whereby the innocent shareholders of the company rather than the guilty person should be penalised. Dr. N. A. Foden, appearing for the Marine Department, cited authorities to show that the New Zealand company had a vicarious liability. He contended that a company was a “person” within the meaning of the regulations. Mr. Shorland, in reply, said that the law never imposed absolute liability on each person where several persons were deemed to be liable for an offence.