GEOROE STREET EXPLOSION

Evening Star, Issue 19327, 13 August 1926, Page 2

GEOROE STREET EXPLOSION

CLAIM AGAINST CORPORATION SUCCEEDS INJURED WOMAN AWARDED DAMAGES The claim for damages arising ont of tho explosion in the shop front of Miss K. Barnett, in George street, m October of last year, engaged the attention of His Honor Mr Justice Sun and a special jury in tho Supreme Court throughout yesterday. The plaintiffs were Daniel Lankford Smith, hospital attendant, and Annie Smith, his wife, and the defendant was tho Dunedin City Corporation, the claim being for £239 16s 6d on account of injuries sustained by Mrs Smitli, who was blown off tho footpath when the explosion occurred, and suffered tho injuries for which tho claim was made. , , , . After tho ]ury had made an mspecion of tho premises and counsel bad addressed the court. His Honor said there was no doubt that Mrs Smith had suffered injuries, and whether she was entitled to damages from the City Corporation depended on the answers given by the jury to tho questions submitted to it. The plaintiffs’ case was based on two grounds. The first was that Davies and Keats were guilty of negligence in going into tno cellar in the circumstances with a naked light, and that. that caused an explosion for which tho City Corporation was liable. There was an alternating ground, on which tho plaintiffs contended that if they failed on the first ground tho explosion was an explosion of bitumen gas, that tho system which produced an explosion of that kind was a nuisance, and that they

were entitled to succeed on that ground if thev failed on the other. There was a conflict of evidence in regard to Davies and Keats going into the cellar with at naked light, Mvs Scott Kuid she saw them with a light, but they defied doing anything more than strike a match. If they had a naked light tho question whether negligence was involved had to bo considered. this depended largely on tho conditions ]irevailing when Davies and Keats got there, and there was a conflict of evidence on that point. If thcio was a risk of gas being present there was negligence in going in with a naked light. There was a discrepancy in Davies’s evidence which raised serious doubt as to the accuracy of his memory. If tho jury were satisfied that the two men had a naked light in tho cellar and that there was negligence on their part it would have to answer tho question whether that negligence caused the explosion. That was a matter entirely for the jury. It was a very remarkable thing and a very curious coincidence, if they had a naked light, that the explosion should have taken place immediately after they had gone into tho cellar. If tho light was taken in and that caused negligence it did

not matter very much whether it was an explosion of bitumen gas or coal gas. The nature of tho explosion seemed to be a mystery. The suggestion on behalf of the corporation was that it must have been an explosion of goal gas that had accumulated ui the shop above. It seemed very curious that tho explosion should have taken place when it did, and that the window should have been blown almost across the street, and that the floor should have been blown downwards instead of upwards. It was for tho plaintiffs to satisfy the _ jury that it must have been an explosion of bitumen gas before the question relating to that could be answered in the affirmative. If the jury found it impossible to come to any conclusion on the subject ft could say that it was not satisfied on

the evidence that it was an explosion of bitumen gas. If the verdict depended on the answer to questions 2 and 3 there would ho a serious question whether the plaintiffs would be entitled to recover at all owing to the legislation on the subject. The questions submitted to tho jury were:— 1. (a) Did Davies and Keats, or either of them, have a naked light in Miss Barnett’s coiar? (h) If so, was that negligence? (c) If there were such negligence, did that cause tho explosion? _ , ■ , 2. Was tho explosion an explosion of bitumen gas formed from the fusing and heating of tho electric cable in George street? 3. Was the system which produced snch an explosion a nuisance? 4. (a) What damages is Mrs Smith entitled to recover? (b) What damages is Mr Smith entitled to recover? Tho jury retired at 3.50 p.m., and returned at 4.18 p.m. with affirmative answers to all the questions in issues 1,2, and 3, and awarded Mrs Smith £l6O and her husband £3O. Judgment was entered accordingly, with costs according to scale. The sum of £lO 10s was allowed for tho second day’s trial.