APPEAL COURT CASE

Manawatu Standard, Volume LII, Issue 269, 13 October 1932, Page 8

APPEAL COURT CASE

SEQUEL TO FLYING CRASH. WELLINGTON, Oct. Further legal argument on the appeal of Dominion Airlines, Ltd., in liquidation, against a judgment of Mr Justice Reed, in which he awarded £oUUU damages to Mr William Thomas Strand, mayor of Lower Hutt, was heard before the First and Second Divisions of the Court of Appeal. Mr G. G. Watson, for appellant, submitted that plaintiff had to prove affirmatively that a breach of the regulation regarding “B” licenses was the immediate and effective cause of Mr Strand’s death and that failure to have a “B” license either caused, or contributed, to the accident. It must be established, he said, that the accident was brought about by a cause associated with Mr Right’s medical history. The balance of probabilities was in favour of tlie theory that the crash was caused by engine failure, which rendered a forced landing inevitable. There was no evidence, medical or 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, he contended that as the pilot knew his life depended upon carefulness in flying it ■was not likely that he would he gentMr P. B. Cooke, second counsel for appellant, submitted certain proposals of law which, he contended, barred respondent from recovering damages. The hearing was adjourned.

TO-DAY’S PROCEEDINGS. Per Press Association. WELLINGTON, Oct. 13. In the Appeal Court case, Dominion Airlines, Ltd. v. Strand, Mr Cooke continued his argument that the aviation regulations, 1918, were purely police regulations and not intended to create civiL liability. The. regulations, he said, provided a uniform penalty for a breach of many widely differing provisions, many of which, such as the provision against flying over fortifications, had no reference to the safety, either 'of the passengers or the public in general. The fact that the regulations were expressly stated to be provisional regulations was a clear indications that the regulations were not intended to alter or extend the existing forms of civil liability.