BLENHEIM AIR CRASH

Manawatu Standard, Volume LIV, Issue 306, 23 November 1934, Page 12

BLENHEIM AIR CRASH

SEQUEL IN COURT, CLAIM BY~WIDOW. Per Press Association

BLENHEIM, Nov. 22. As a sequel to a tragic aeroplane crash at Blenheim on September 24 last year, a suit was commenced at the Supreme Court before Mr Justice Blair alone late this afternoon. Winifred Gertrude Maindonald, widow, of Christchurch, sued the Marlborough Aero Club, owners of the machine, and New Zealand Airways Ltd., Dunedin, who had reconditioned it, for £SOOO compensation and damages for the death of her husband, Edgar Thomas Maindonald, motor mechanic, of Reefton, who was a passenger in the aeroplane. Mr P. J. O'Regan, of Wellington, and Mr C. T. Smith, of Blenheim, appear for plaintiff; Mr H. J. V. James, of Wellington, and Mr A. A. MacNabb, Blenheim, appear for the defendant club, and Mr J. P. Ward, Dunedin, for New Zealand Airways. Plaintiff alleged that the accident in which her husband lost his life was due to a mechanical defect in that a shackle pin in the elevator controls had become dislodged, thus depriving the pilot of the use of the elevators, and that it became dislodged through not being properly secured by a split-pin. Negligence against the club was alleged in that it was implied in the contract of carriage that the obligations imposed on the club by statute had been complied with and that the machine was airworthy, but that the club actually failed to comply with the air regulations, in that within 24 hours of the flight in question it had not been inspected and certified by a certified ground engineer, and left the ground at Wellington on the fatal flight without the prescribed inspection. As a further or alternative cause of action plaintiff alleged that from June, 1933, when the club purchased the machine from defendant company, there had been no inspection and overhaul as required by the regulations. As against the defendant company, plaintiff alleged that the ’plane was overhauled and repaired by it in April and May, 1933, but it omitted efficiently to secure the shackle pin. „ . . The aero club’s statement of defence is to the effect that Maindonald was carried as a passenger at his special request, and signed a declaration, which was specially explained to him, that he travelled at his own risk, and would, not hold the club liable for any loss or damage suffered by him or his dependants by any lack of skill on the part of the pilot, defect in the machine, or breach of any regulation or legal obligation of the club or the officers or servants of the club. It further denied that the cause of the accident was as stated by plaintiff. The defendant company’s statement of defence is that before the machine was delivered to the club in June, 1933, it was inspected and given a certificate of airworthiness by Government officials at Wigram aerodrome, and that this certificate. releases the company from responsibility even if the cause of the accident was as stated. 4 large number of technical witnesses are being called, and it is understood the essence of the case is that the machine was certified as airworthy by the Wellington Aero Club’s ground engineer on September 22, and had flown only three hours after that inspection and before the fatal flight began; that even if an inspection had been carried out immediately before the flight the defect alleged by plaintiff could not possibly have been discovered in the course of the ground engineer’s inspection, and that the controls were tested and were working properly before the machine took off on the fatal flight. The defence also contends that the indemnity signed by Maindonald is binding and definite, as all risks were specifically explained to him and he laughed them away.