THE RAILWAY WHARF. RESPONSIBILITY FOR ITS CONTROL.

Evening Post, Volume L, Issue 50, 27 August 1895, Page 2

THE RAILWAY WHARF. RESPONSIBILITY FOR ITS CONTROL.

The Chief .tustioe gave his judgment this morning in the oase of Harrington v. the Wellington Harbour Board, involving a question as to whether the Board Or the Railway Department is responsible for accidents which occur on the wharf. The plaintiff, a fireman, originally sued the Board for 4501 as damages for injuries caused through his falling at night over a switch on the Railway Wharf. Ihe jury found that the wharf on the night in question was insuf.ficiently lighted, and returned a verdiot for the plaintiff for 4250 damages. Subsequently argument was heard on the point* raised by the defence— that the wharf was not under the Board s control, therefore it was not its duty to keep it, lighted, and nnder the circumstances the plaintiff must be held to have taken upon himself th j risk of proceeding along the wharf in its existing oondition. His Honour said the wharf was absolutely vested in the Board by the Wellington Harbour Board and Corporation Land Aot, 1886, subject to the oondition that the Board wa* to maintain it in good repair, and the Queen being empowered to lay lines of railway, suoh lines to .be maintained by the Queen, who might conduct the whole traffic on the wharf nnder any Aot, by-laws, or regulations applicable generally to railways and works connected with them. Plaintiff contended that the expression "the whole of the traffio " referred only to the railway traffio, and not to the general management of the wharf, and defendants maintained that tha sole oontrol of everything taking place on the wharf, as distinguished from what took place by the sido of the wharf, was with the Kailway Department. Sub-s.otion sof section 4 of the Act provided that the line* of railway built on the wharf and Waterlooquay ehould.be maintained by the Queen, who might conduot the whole of the traffio on the railway and railway wharf. Tbia contemplated some other, traffio than traffio on tho railway itself; but seeing that by section S of the Aot all the provisions of the Harbours Aot of .1878 were to extend to the wharf, he was inclined to think that tha wharf was subject to the 'regulation and oontrol of the Harbour Board, and was in tho occupation of the Board, so far as was consistent with its oooupation by the Queen for oarrying purposes on railway unes. However, from tho view he took of the other question it was not necessary to deoide whether the wharf wab eubjeot to the oontrol and management of the Board or not. Assuming the wharf was subjeot to the oontrol of the Board, there was no provision in the Harbours Aot of 1878, or in any regulations made by the Governor under that Aot, imposing on the Harbour Board a duty to light the wharf except for the purposes of navigation. That being so, the duty of the Board to persons having busines* on the wharf, or otherwise invited there by defendants, was to warn, them of oonoealed dangers. As to dangers inherent to the nature of the premisus, and whioh therefore even stranger* must ba taken to have knowledge of, suoh were not oonoealed dangers, and there wa* no duty in the inviter to give warning of or guard against them, either by f enoos, notdoei, or lights. A* to mob. dangers as were known to any invited person using the premise*, there was no duty on the part of the inviter to warn him therefrom, by notice, fence, or light; the invited person would be presumed to take upon himself the risk attending such use. Sir Robert Stout had sought to liken the present case to that of railway stations, as to whioh ha contended there was a duty to light ; but there was no authority for the position that the station* were to be kept lighted at night. The deoided oases only went to the extent that the passages provided by the oarrierefor passengers to pass to and from the trainsmust be kept reasonably safe for the use of passengers. The existence of the danger of the rails and switches was visible, and in no way oonoealed, and must have been known, to the plaintiff, who once a week for IS months bad come with hia venel to the wharf and had been in the habit of walking along the wharf into town on fine nights. Whatever might be the oase of a, stranger landing from a steamer at a wharf like the Queen's Wharf, whioh had no railway line* on it, he thought that at a wharf like the Railway Wharf, oooupied as it wm by a railway, a person ltnding at it even for the firit time could not complain that he had no'; been warned of the existence of rails aid switches. The defendants did usually light the wharf, but the absenoe of the light on the night of the aooident was evident to the plaintiff, and if he wished to trarerse the wharf he must either risk tie consequences of coming into oon'iaot with the obstacle, or wait Cor a li|fht, or do as Chief Justice Etle said in a Case between master and servant, " Get a light for himself if he wanted one.' 5 Bathe, conscious of the obstaoles, though Btpeoting to avoid them, proceeded and met rriih the accident. He was not negligent, nor were the defendants negligent, or at any rate their negligence was not the oause of the accident. Judgment was therefore entered up for the defendants, with cost* according to scale.