FLYING TROLLEY HEAD

Evening Post, Issue 113, 10 November 1930, Page 11

FLYING TROLLEY HEAD

ACCIDENT IN STREET

CLAIM AGAINST CORPORATION

The extent of. the liability of the City Corporation if the head of a tram- ] car trolley pole falls upon a person in | the street is the question Mr. J. S. Barton, S.M., is being asked to decide in a case in the Magistrate's Court today. The plaintiffs are Harry Koppert and his wife Margaret Eobinson Koppert, of Oamaru, and the defendants the Mayor, councillors, and citizens of ' Wellington. • He plaintiffs allege that the defendant carelessly and negligently drove a tramcar in Willis street on 28th February, so that a trolley head fell upon the female plaintiff, seriously injuring he •. As a result of these injuries, the plaintiffs claim £63 4s J 2d in special damages, and £100 general damages. j '■ Mr. F. AY. Ongley appears for the ] plaintiffs, and Mr. J. Lockio, the Assistant City Solicitor, for the Corporation.. Mrs. Koppert, in evidence taken at Oamaru, said that about 12.30 p.m. on 28th February, she was in Willis street, near the corner of Boulcott street, walking on the footpath. A "trolley pole head flew off a passing tramcar. It hit her on the shoulder, aiul then grazed her side. She was stunned by the shock, but "was not knocked down. Her costume coat was torn and the skirt was ruined by rust and grease off the head. She had to receive extensive medical attention, and for some time afterwards could not do any work, which necessitated her employing help, •while her sister had to accompany her back to Oamaru. The husband, Harry Koppert, an engineer by occupation, said that the trolley head was kept in position by a set-screw working in a groove, and was attached to a safety rope to prevent the head from flying off if the set-screw worked loose. If the head did fall off the screw must have become very loose, and the rope must have been in a very bad state of repair to break. If the rope did not_ break it must have been improperly tied. TO PREVENT SERIOUS DAMAGE. .. Mr. Lockio submitted that the only ground on which the plaintiffs could succeed was by proving negligence on the :part. of the- defendant. The plaintiffs had contended that there was absolute liability on. the part of the Corporation, but it was submitted that this was not so. The only evidence of negligence was 'the evidence of Koppert when he referred to the safety rope. The-trolley head,'said counsel, was, according to Government regulations, only jammed on the pole, not screwed on in any way. This was to allow the head to come away, in case of mishap, instead of tho standard and all the overhead gear being damaged, with possible grave results. To prevent the head flying away when it did come off a rope was attached, but if the head after coming off'became entangled in the overhead gear the rope was made of material which would break under a. certain strain to allow the head to fall, with a possible small amount of damage, rather than take the chance of all the overhead gear being brought down. It was the lesser of two evils. That was what had happened in the present case. The head had come off the standard and had become entangled in the overhead gear, and the safety rope had been subject to a strain of about 19 tons. The rope had broken as.it was intended to, for if it had not, serious damage would have been done1 to the- standard and overhead gear. The trams were thoroughly inspected every night when they were in the shed, and also by each motorman before being taken out in the morning. The overhead wires were also inspected daily. Evidenco as to the system of inspection of the trams and the general use of the swivel trolley head was then given. THE GENERAL SYSTEM. Matthew Cahle, General Manager of the Tramway Department, said that there were very few systems in the work" using the safeguard of the short rope between the head and the standard. There was always risk from a falling trolley heud, and to witness' 3 knowledge* nothing had been designed which would effectively abolish that risk. In Wellington scores of patents had been experimented with, and. the present syStemwas tho most satisfactory. It was the general English practice. Accidents caused by trolley heads falling were rare in Wellington. > Mr. Ongley: "How many times have you had a ' 'olley head thrown on. the footpath?" Witness: "I couldn't givv the number. It is not an uncommon occurrence." . 1 ■ For the plaintiffs, Mr. Ongley contended that the matter was entirely within the knowledge of the defendant, and the burden of proof was on them to show what had happened. The rope, which was a safety devico to keep the head from flying away, had broken, and there was no evidence as to when it had been put on, when it was laßt inspected, or what its condition was. The Court, he contended, had to be satisfied that in some extraordinary way the trolley-pole head had become jammed somewhere in tho overhead lino, which was next to perfect, before it could give a verdict against the plaintiffs. •• Mr. Lockie submitted that tho council' had taken every precaution 'to avoid accident. Everything was in proper working order, and there had been rio negligence on the part of the Corporation servants. The council felt a great deal of sympathy for the •plaintiffs, but if 'it were to bo held liable for accidents of this nature over which it had no control, it might be mulcted in damages amounting to thousands of pounds, and it would have no possible hope of avoiding it. The Magistrate reserved his decision. _____^____—.