’QUAKE ECHO

Gisborne Times, 13 October 1932, Page 7

’QUAKE ECHO

M'AIROA AIR SMASH. SEQUJiL TO AWARD OF £3000.,. LEGAL ARGUMENT IX APPEAL COURT. (I Voss AssouiuMo.nA WELLINGTON. OcL ly. Thu Court of Appeal is hearing the ease ui : Dominion Air Liucs. Limited v. Strand, T'lißs ca»u, whiclt was argued before the Coui'L of Appeal in July last, presents considerable legal difficulties, and the eourl asked fur the argument Lo be represented lo another beneii of judges consisting of members of both divisions of ihe court. That is being done to-day. On the bench are Sir Michael Myers. Mr. Justice .MacGregor, Mr. Justice Ostler, A.lr. Justice Smith, and Air. Justice Kennedy. liie facts leading iu the appeal are that ou February 8, 1931. shortly after the Hawke’s Ray earthquake, a Desoutter monoplane belonging to Dominion Air Lines. Limited, now in liquidation, when Hying between Gisborne and Hastings, crashed in. a field near Wairoa. tile pilot, Ivan Louis Xigln. and two passengers being killed. An action was subsequently commenced in the Supreme Court by William Thomas Strand, fattier of William Charles Strand, one of the passengers who was killed, claiming under the Death and Accident Compensation Act the sum of £SOOO for the death of his son. He alleged that the company .had been guilty of a breach of its statutory duly in tailing to provide for an aeroplane pilot holding- a B pilot's Hying certificate, issued under the aviation regulations, 1921. and also alleged that the pilot had been, negligent in Hying at too low an altitude, anj at too greatly a reduced speed, and in endeavouring to perform a turn into the wind while Hying at too low an altitude, and at too greatly a reduced speed. The company denied liability, contending that it was a term of the contract of the carriage that it would not be placed under any liability in the event of an. accident. The action was originally heard in Wellington in September. 1931- before Alt - Justice Red. who held that there was a casual connection between a breach of statutory duty, which he found the company to have committed iu failing to provide a pilot holding a I! license, and the accident. He held that the terms of the contract of carriage did not exonerate the company, and awarded Strand £3OOO damages. Air. P. G. Watson, fur appellant, submitted that plaintiff had to prove affirmatively that the breach of the regulation regarding the B license the cause of Air. Strand’s death, and that failure to have a B license | either caused or contributed to the | accident. It must be established Unit the accident was brought about by i*i cause associated with Eight's medical history. The balance of the probabilities was in favor of the theory"that the crash was caused by engine failure, which rendered a forced landing inevitable. There was no evi- I deuce, medical uj ■ expert, to show that the accident was caused by the physical or temperamental disability of the pilot. The evidence showed that the same accident might have happened to a pilot who was perfect physically. Finally. R was contended that, as the pilot knew that his life depended upon bis carefulness in flying, it was unlikely that he would be negligent. Air. P. R. Cooke, second counsel for appellant, submitted certain propositions of law, which, lie contended, barred respondent from recovering damages. The Aviation Act, 1919. he said, gave no power to the Government to create an entirely new right of action. The creation of such a right of action, unless power was expressly given by the Act. would he ultra vires of the » regulations. The aviation regulations of 1.91.3 wer«, imposed purely for the protection of the public in general and did not by their breach of pur- 1 port give any special cause of action to anybody. They were a police measure, and wore not intended to create a. liability. Tlie bearing was adjourned.