CLAIM UPHELD

Hokitika Guardian, 25 May 1933, Page 6

CLAIM UPHELD

CORPORATION’S LIABILITY

(Per Press Association Copyright.)

WELLINGTON, Alay 25

Holding fill at m view of the presentstale of traffic on hard surfaced roads, - the City Corporation’s, surfaced roads, 'filling m street excavations and leaving them unsealed is unsafe, Air McNeil. 15. M),,. gave judgment to-day in favour of ’ |jhar.les 'Edward Bell, who claimed £2l 17s 5d fr-oiii the corporation Bell has a 'baker’s ...shop in Soutn ••Wellington adjacent’ to streets surraceu Tvith bitumen and the corporation nan hid a drain .along, which was filled in and finished off with metal. Before the ’’excavation, it was stated there were no loose stones about the street surface. The allegation wa s that a window ■broken in tlie shop wag broken as the result of being stipck by a Hying stone from the wheel of a ,passing motor. It was submitted by the defence that there was no evidence of the window being broken by a stone frbm the drain. Th ( > Magistrate s aid lie had come to the conclusion it was a flying stone, and the question was whether the corporation was liable. The weight of evidence in" his opinion established that the (defendants’ practice, in view of tne present state of traffic on hard surfaced roads was. not a safe one ancl that this was recognised by the defendant? and engineers familiar with road work. Th e evidence also showed that it was quite feasible to top dress so that the filling would not be disturbed by passing traffic. As the defendant did not do the work so as to prevent stones being dislodged, lie thought it negligent and liable. 'Mr McNeil drew attention, to a similar case at Leeds, England,, which appears in the justices of the peace and local government review of February 18tln