AEROPLANE MISHAP

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXII, Issue 22126, 4 June 1935, Page 11

AEROPLANE MISHAP

COLLISION WITH MOTOR-CAR DAMAGES AGAINST PILOT [from our own correspondent] HAMILTON. Monday A reserved decision of interest to aero clubs and amateur pilots was given by Mr. S. L. Paterson, S.M., in the Hamilton Magistrate's Court on Saturday in the case in which Ebbett Motors, Limited (Mr. Johnson), sought to recover £129 as damages from the Western Federated (North Island) Flying Club (Mr. Moss) and Kenneth Bartlett.

The claim arose out of a collision between an aeroplane owned by the defendant club, piloted by Bartlett, and a stationary motor-car, owned by the plaintiff company. The accident occurred at the Te Rapa aerodrome. The magistrate said Bartlett admitted that he had started the engine of the aeroplane when there was no one at the controls in the cockpit. The throttle was pulled full open, with the result that the aeroplane raced along the ground and collided with the plaintiff company's motor-car. There was no doubt, said Mr. Paterson, that Bartlett was guilty of negligence. The plaintiff company was therefore entitled to recover from him. The real issue in the proceedings, however, was whether the plaintiff company could recover damages from the defendant club. That issue depended on \vhether or not at the time of the collision the aeroplane was under the control of Bartlett, as the servant or agent of the club. Mr. Paterson said he found the relationship between the defendant club and Bartlett was that of bailor and bailee, and not that of master and servant. The right of control over Bartlett and the machine was not that of master and servant, or principal and agent, and was compatible with a contract of bailment. The aeroplane was hired to Bartlett in return for monetary payment. His object in flying to Hamilton was to see his parents and was not for any purpose or business of the defendant club. Bartlett's selection of passengers and destination was at his own discretion. He was subject only to the general precautionary regulations of the club, which stated the terms of the contract, and this was compatible with the non-existence of any relationship of service or agency. Judgment was given for the club and for the plaintiff company against Bartlett for the amount claimed, with costs.