CLAIM FOR DAMAGES

Manawatu Standard, Volume LVII, Issue 154, 1 June 1937, Page 6

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES

SEQUEL TO LEAK IN ROOF. CASE FROM DANNEVIRKE. Following a successful Supreme Court action in i 936 by tne occupier of a shop in Dannevirke, bhukry Alexander, against Leo Stem, draper, of Dannevirke, for damage to stock caused by water from the roof of the premises, i.eo bteni commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court to-day against a builder, James Joseph Anderson, of Dannevirke, claiming £268 13s 4d as damages and costs paid to Alexander, £lB 14s 6a as the costs of repairing and altering a roof and guttering, £lB7 Os 7d as legal costs and also the costs of the current action. The action was heard by His Honour Sir John Reed. Mr A. M. Ongley appeared tor plaintiff and Mr M. H. Oram, with him Air E. Gibbard, of Dannevirke, for defendant.

Plaintiff's statement o“ claim set out that, in or about August, 1934, defendant had undertaken to prepare plans and specifications for, and to carry out alterations and additions to, a two-storey wooden building owned by plaintiff, for £lB2 10s. The alterations had been completed in October, 1934, the contract price, together with an amount for extras, being .paid. These alterations and additions had included the construction of a new roof over part of the shop occupied by Alexander, and the provision of guttering and down-pipes to carry the water from the roof mentioned, as well as the water from the existing roof. On December 11, 1934, during a heavy rainfall, water had come tnrough the new roof into Alexander’s shop and had caused damage to stock therein. It was alleged tiiat the reason for the water entering was that the alterations and additions had been incompetently designed by defendant and had been of bad workmanship in that some of the guttering had been too flat and shallow to carry the water falling and discharging on to the new roof, whereby it had overflowed from the guttering. On or about April 13, 1935, Alexander had commenced an action in the Supreme Court, against plaintiff for loss caused by the water entering his shop. On February 28, 1936. an order had been made giving plaintiff leave to issue a third paity notice against defendant. That notice bad been served. When the action had been tried at Palmerston North on May 21 and 22. 1936, and judgment entered for Alexander, damages eventually being fixed at £195 and £io 13s id, defendant (Anderson) had been present and represented by counsel. Plaintiff had. incurred expenses in repairing the roof and altering the guttering and bad incurred legal costs in defending the action. Plaintiff tlieiefore claimed the sums set out. THE DEFENCE.

In his statement of defence, defendant denied having undertaken to prepare plans and specifications for the alterations and additions, although he admitted having undertaken to cany out the work. Defendant stated that it had been no part of the contract to construct a roof over the additions capable of carrying away, in addition to water normally falling thereon, water that might be discharged on to it from the main building. It was further advanced that plaintiff’s, losses had been due to his negligence in not taking steps to prevent damage to the occupier’s goods by water, after the possibility of such damage occurring had been pointed out by the occupier, Alexander, and alter plaintiff had promised Alexander that lie would take such steps as would prevent any such damage happening, it was alleged that judgment had been entered against plaintiff in the first action for that reason, while it was also alleged* that plaintiff was estopped as against defendant from denying the truth and validity of that judgment. As a further defence, defendant stated that, while denying all liability for the cause of the action as alleged by plaintiff, lie had paid into Court £lB 4s 6d and stated that that sum was enough to satisfy plaintiff’s claim. Evidence was given by plaintiff as to the work carried out in respect of roof guttering and by Mr T. G. Nelson, who had acted as plaintiff’s solicitor. The latter stated that defendant had told Alexander that there might be trouble about the guttering. Alexander, defendant had stated, had told him to proceed and that he (Alexander) would sue plaintiff if any damage resulted.

Admitted by both sides, evidence given by Air B. H. Croker, architect, in the initial action, was put in. In that the opinion was expressed that the gutter could not efficiently deal with water from the roof. Mr C. J. Kirk, architect, also gave evidence, saying that the guttering had been unsuitable and likely to cause trouble.

Plumbing which had been carried out on the roof of the building after a heavy downpour was explained by G. Drinkwater, a plumber. Later he had replaced the old gutter, about ah inch and a half deep, with another, four and a half inches deep.

A. E. Potts. builder, who had worked with the previous witness, said the gutter had not been deep enough to carry a heavy- downpour. The Court , then adjourned for lunch.