CLAIM FOR DAMAGES

Evening Post, Volume CX, Issue 131, 1 December 1930, Page 11

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES

ESCAPE OF SEWEBAGE

AUCTIONEER'S PREMISES

Extensive damage to stock, loss of business and inconvenience, were alleged in the Supreme Court to-day "by Davis Bros., auctioneers, to have "been caused by the flooding of the basement of their premises in. Lower Cuba street, allegedly by a defective seiver. Davis Bros, claimed from the City Corporation £290 19s 9d as damages. ■ The Chief Justice, Sir Michael Myers, was on the Bench. Mr. W. E. Leicester and Mr. L. K. Wilson appeared for the plaintiffs, and the City Solicitor (Mr. J. o,'Shea), with the Assistant City Solicitor (Mr. J. Lockie), for the Corporation. - The statement of claim set out that the plaintiffs occupy the ground floor and basement of premises, 57-59, Lower Cuba street, and that on 6th" August last year the basement of the building was flooded by sewerage from the defendant corporation's sewer. It was alleged that extensive damage was done to furniture and other goods stored in the basement by the effect of the water and sewerage, and that additional damage was caused to the furniture by its removal and storing. After the sewerage had been drained off the basement floor had to be taken up. It was claimed that the plaintiffs business was disorganised, suffered inconvenience, and that there was a loss of business as a result of- the flooding. The plaintiffs alleged that the flooding and escape of the sewerage wore duo to the main sower becoming choked and the sewerage being dammed up, thereby creating a danger which formed an outlet into the plaintiffs' premises. Several further and alternative claims were made by the plaintiffs. They alleged that the sewer . constituted a nuisance by the alleged obstruction, causing the sewerage to be diverted into the plaintiffs' premises, and that the alleged obstruction and choking of the sewer were due to alleged negligence by the Corporation In failing to keep the sewer properly cleansed, or (1) alleged failure to keep the sewer in proper, repair; (2) alleged failure to take any precautions to prevent the sewer- becoming choked, or to have an examination made as to its state of repair; (3) alleged _negligence in constructing above the sewer, large and heavy concrete blocks, which sank and caused the sewer to become damaged, broken, and choked. Another allegation was that the Corporation negligently placed a large block of concrete in the tramway bed in Cuba street directly above the sewer, with the result that "the sewer was crushed and tlie sewerage diverted. In its statement of defence, the Corporation denied that the basement was flooded with sewerage, but admitted that certain' sowarge escaped from the Corporation's public drain in Cuba street and entered the plaintiffs' basement. It was admitted that the basement floor had to be taken up, but it was- denied that the stock was damaged extensively or that the business, was disbrganised. A denial was also given to the allegation that the flooding and escape of the sewerage.were duo to the main sewer becoming choked and tho sewerage being dammed up. A general denial was given to other allegations, and it was contended that as the sewer was a public work a claim for compensation could only be made within twelve months of its completion. Evidence is being heard.