AIR TRAGEDY

Hokitika Guardian, 15 October 1932, Page 5

AIR TRAGEDY

APPEAL CASE COURT RESERVES DECISION. (Per Press Association— Copyright.) WELLINGTON, October 14. In the Appeal Court ca&e, Dominion !Air,.iiics, Ltd., v. strand, Mr On-ary for Strand, ..submitted that there was a definite connection or nexus between the breach of the regulations and the accident, because, if the regulations had been obser\«d, the pilot jvig.it, would not have been ill charge of a plane. The contract of carriage had been made on the assumption that the aviation regulations had been complied ■with.’ There wak iio ’evidence that Strand knew that the appellant Company had committed a breach of its statutory duty ni permitting lvight to pilot the plane. If the respondent had known that Right was rebarred from pilotin'; a plane lie would have accepted the position and traveled completely at bis own risk.

Mr Cleary submitted that the grant of a pilot’s licence was not a matter of right, but lay in the discretion ol the Air Board, who could refuse a (defense jun any proper ground. Appellant’s whole argument was based on tire ground of medical examination, the only thing standing between Right and a B certificate enabling him to carry passengers. However, the Director of the 'Air Services considered that Right was unfit to be a commercial pilot. Right was .suffering from neurasthenia, a form of disability which indicated abscyice of the nervous stability demanded by th e Air Regulations. The fact that the company had been guilty of a distinct breach of the regulations in allowing the plane to be flown by a pilot not holding a B license cast the- forms o'* proof on the appellant company of proving there was no connection between the breach of regulation arid the accident.

After hearing Mr P. B. Cooke, counsel for appellant, in reply, the Court reserved its decision.