Fall Over Obstruction on Footpath

Manawatu Times, Volume 61, Issue 279, 25 November 1936, Page 8

Fall Over Obstruction on Footpath

WOMAN ALLEGES NEGLIGENCE AGAINST BUILDERS.

Claiming £9 9s damages as a sequel to a fall over an obstruction on the footpath in Broadway, Mrs. Doris Byers, of Palmerston North, proceeded against W. W. Angus, Ltd., of Napier, building contractors, in the Magistrate's Court at Palmerston North yesterday before Mr. J. L. ■ Stout, S.M., alleging that defendant company had negligently failed to have the obstruction properly lighted. Plaintiff’s claim was made up of the following items: Doctor £1 Is, chemist 14s 6d, gloves ]4s Gd, pair stockings 9s, wages of girl £2, general damages £5. Mr. T. P. Kelilng appeared for plaintiff and Mr. W. L. Fitzherbert for defendant company. Plaintiff told the Court that the accident had happened on the footpath outsido the new A.M.P. building in drizzling rain on .the night of Saturday, August 8. She had caught the toe of a shoe in a wire holding boards together on the footpath, and had fallen, spraining an ankle and bruising a knee. There had been no lights by which she could have seen the obstruction. Medical attention had been necessary and she had been laid up for ten days. To Mr. Fitzherbert: She denied that the vicinity was so well lighted that the absenco of lights on the construction work could make any difference to the visibility.

Harry Byers, father-in-law of the previous witness, said he had noticed that the lights at the end of the construction work had not been going on that particular Saturday evening. He had not been with his daughter-in-law at the time of the accident.

Similar evidence was given by lan Hamilton Byers, a brother-in-law of plaintiff, who said that he himself had caught his foot on tho boards and had stumbled but not fallen.

This concluded plaintiff’s case, whereupon Mr. Fitzherbert asked for a nonsuit, claiming that there was no evidence of negligence against defendant company, and eveu if there was, plaintiff had been guilty of contributory negligence. Plaintiff knew that construction work was going on.

The Magistrate refused a nonsuit, saying that in liis opinion the wiredtogether boards across the footpath were just as dangerous in the daytime as at night. He thought they should be nailed down and not wired across the top. The accident had happened at night, and there was evidence that the construction work had not been lighted. Before calling evidence, Mr. Fitzherbert said defendant company had done all that was required by the borough by-laws and more. The case was an important one for builders, as they might bo facing claims from people who said they had fallen over. Kenneth Angus, in charge of the A.M.P. building operations, said all borough by-laws had been complied with in regard to the obstruction, which was illuminated at both ends by electric lights controlled by time-switches. The vicinity was well lighted. He had not seen the lights on the Saturday evening, but on the Sunday night he had seen them going.

Joseph Denham, electrician, said he had installed tho lights, which were automatically switched on every night at sunset.

Huia Hislop Mackrell, borough building inspector, said defendant company had complied' with all by-laws. On a complaint being made by Mrs. Byers, he had visited the. spot and found the wires across the boards absolutely taut. He could find no reason why she should have tripped. William C. Cantlon, borough electrical inspector, said he had examined the lights. They were controlled by a time switch, and if it were kept wound, they would bo automatically switched ou every night.

The Magistrate* reserved his decision, saying that he would inspect the lighting at night-time.