STRUCK BY FLAGPOLE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 19415, 25 August 1926, Page 14

STRUCK BY FLAGPOLE.

CLAIM AGAINST BUILDERS. DAMAGES ASSESSED AT £IOSO. JURY'S MAJORITY VERDICT. The action for £1550 damages arising from a peculiar accident in which plaintiff, while passing an hotel building which defendants had undertaken to reconstruct, sustained a fractured skull through being struck on the head by a fragment of a flagpole, was concluded in tho Supreme Court yesterday, before Mr. Justice Herdman and a special jury. The plaintiff was William Stephenson Johnson, vulcaniser (Mr. Northcroft), and the defendants W. J. Grevatt and Sons (Mr. Richmond). Mr. Richmond remarked that among thousands of cases he did not know of one in which tho circumstances wero so peculiar. The jury retired at 12.15 and returned exactly four hours later, answering as follows the sevon issues submitted by the Court (1) Was the breaking of tho flagpole due to any negligent act (a) of a workman employed by the defendants ?—No. (b) Of the workman Davis employed by the sub-constractors, Morton a-nd Collins. —No. ' (2) Was Davis on the roof (a) with the permission of the defendants ?—Yes. (b) By the order of the defendants? —No, by the order of Morton and Collins. (3) When Davis was on tho roof was he under the control of the defendants ? Yes. (4) Had defendants commenced the demolition of tho external portion of tho building facing Shortland Street at the time of the accident ?--By a majority of nine to three, Yes. (5) Wero the defendants in all tho circumstances negligent in not having a hoarding erected on the Shortland Street footpath ?—By a majority of nine to three, Yes. (6) Were the defendants guilty of negligence in allowing Davis to proceed to tho roof of the building on the subcontractor's business bofore the hoarding was erected?—By a majority of nine to three, Yes. (7) What damages, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover ?—(a) Special damages —£50 8s 6d; (b) general damages—£looo. Mr. Northcroft moved for judgment, Mr. Richmond reserving leave to apply for a new trial. The case was adjourned for further consideration.