FALL DOWN CELLAR

Greymouth Evening Star, 21 February 1940, Page 3

FALL DOWN CELLAR

MINER AWARDED DAMAGES

WELLINGTON, February 20

After retiring for nearly three hours a jury in the Supreme Court to-night returned a verdict in favour of Edward Gilbert, a miner, who claimed damages totalling £1220/2/- from Timothy Dominic Kelliher, a former licensee of the Alhambra. Hotel. The case was heard before Mr. Justice Smith. The plaintiff alleged negligence, stating that while leaving the hotel premises he fell through an opening which gave access to the beer cellar. The plaintiff was awarded £374/12/special and £4OO general damages. The plaintiff alleged in his statement of claim that on May 21, 1938, when the defendant was the licensee of the Alhambra Hotel, Wellington, he was lawfully on the premises and fell through an opening in the floor. It was alleged also that the defendant had negligently permitted such opening to be left in the floor, that he failed to take any or adequate steps to warn the plaintiff and other users of the premises of the danger constituted by the opening, and that he failed to take any or adequate steps to ensure the safety of plaintiff and others using the premises near the opening. Through his injuries the plaintiff had been permanently disabled, and was unable to work. He was an inmate of the Wellington Public Hospital from May 22, 1938, to June 14 of that year, and ever since had been under constant medical care and treatment. The defence denied the allegations, and stated that the defendant had no knowledge of the iplaintiff being on the premises at any time on the date in question, and that the premises were in a safe condition and in no way constituted a danger. It was admitted that the defendant at the time was li censee of the hotel. His Honor said that this was a case in which the plaintiff, as a cus tomer on hotel premises, was claim ing damages for an accident which, he alleged, had occurred at this hotel. Ir explaining the law on this point, his Honor added that a customer or in vitee entering a shop or hotel, anc using reasonable care for his owr safety, was entitled to some reason able care from the licensee. No ques tion had been raised whether ths plaintiff had been negligent, and t question for the jury to decide was whether the licensee had taken rea ■ sonable care for the safety of his customers. Another question to b( 'decided by the .jury was whether th( plaintiff had proved to their satisfac tion as reasonable men that the trap cloor had been left open, and whethei plaintiff had fallen into the cellar There was no doubt that the plaintif had fallen somewhere, but had h< ! proved to the satisfaction of the jurj that he had been injured as stated If the jury had any doubt it was theii duty to find in favour of the defend ant. -