ACTION FOR DAMAGES

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21627, 23 April 1932, Page 2

ACTION FOR DAMAGES

CLAIM AGAINST CITY CORPORATION PLAINTIFFS CASE FAILS The hearing was concluded in the Supreme Court before Mr Justice Kennedy and a jury yesterday of the case in which Isabella Miller proceeded against the City Corporation on a claim for damages arising out of the death of her son, John Miller. Miller came into contact with a live wire at Momona on August 11 and was electrocuted. The plaintiff alleged that his death had been due to the negligence of the corporation or alternatively that the corporation had wrongfully allowed current to escape. The corporation denied negligence, and claimed that it could not be held liable in law for what it had done under statutory authority. Evidence was given for the defence by Matthew C. Henderson, city electrical engineer, William Joseph Cobert, an electrician in charge of the Outrara sub-sta-tion, and Robert. Baxter Neill, a linesman. '

Isaac Dalmar, engineer and manager of the Waitaki Electric Power Board, expressed general agreement with the evidence of Mr Henderson on the first day of the hearing with respect to the inspection of lines at every insulator. He had studied the phenomenon of vibration, which, the corporation stated, was responsible for the breaking of the line. An inspection to prevent vibration breaks would have to be frequent. A fracture might occur a month after inspection. Linton Simmons Paine, resident electrical engineer at the Waitaki Hydroelectric Works, said that he had made i a special study of the phenomenon or vibration. An inspection of the kind suggested would be expensive and unusual, and to disclose faults made by vibration would have to be made almost daily. Three strands of the wire which had broken at Momona showed typical vibration breaks, and a fourth strand has possibly broken owing to the same cause. Evidence was also given by George Thomas Edgar, assistant city electrical engineer, and Joseph Lithgow, electrical engineer for Messrs A. S. Paterson and Co. The latter stated that it would be impossible to guard against vibration, rle considered that no material good would come from an inspection of the type sug* gested. It would not necessarily disclose a defect. This concluded the evidence. Counsel for the corporation, in addressing the jury claimed that the evidence alf went to sliow that the corporation had done all that it could have been reasonably expected to do to protect the public, There was no conflict of evidence, and even Mi Williams, the plaintiff’s expert, had not, contended that there was any system ot inspection which could have been adopted that the corporation had failed to adopt. There could be no doubt that vibration had caused three and possibly four of the strands to break and that _ contraction caused by frost had resulted in the snapping of the others. The evidence had also indicated that no matter what preen ntions had been taken the defect in the line might not have been disclosed, it wag alleged that the line had not been kept in a safe state of repair, and it had been suggested that the line might have reached the end of its useful life, but it had been in use for only six years, and a test had been made which had shown it to be as good as new. Tne Public Works Department, to which the accident had been reported, had not required the corporation to remove the hue. It should also be remembered that the corporation was not required to take every precaution that might be put forward by some theoristCounsel for the plaintiff said that it was claimed'that the corporation’s 'duty had not been as faithfully and carefully performed as it should have been. As a result the young man had met his death* and his mother had lost an unusually good son and was_ entitled to damages. It had been shown in the evidence that m 1928 breaks caused by vibration were being looked for in New Zealand. The topic was then bhing discussed. When a body was in charge of a death-dealing thing such as electricity it should use some means of procuring prompt information. Yet it had been proved out of the months of its own officials that tlie corporation had been so unfortunate as not to have a single officer on its staff who had taken an interest in the subject about which they had known nothing until this year. Mr Henderson had stated that an inspection of all lines once in 12 months would cost from £2OOO to £3OOO. If this inspection were confined to the portion of the lines in which the danger due to fallen wires was peculiarly great it would cost only half that amount or it could be made twice,a year for the same amount. It had been admitted by Mr Henderson that such an expenditure would not be too great if human life was to be saved. The corporation had not knqjvn until after it had killed a man that it ought to be looking for and, guarding against such a thing as vibration. It was claimed by the corporation that it had observed all the regulations, but counsel quoted a regulation which, he said, put the onus on the corporation to carry out adequate inspection to ensure immunity from danger. * His Honor, after summing up, submitted the following issues to the jury:— 1. Was the death of the said John Miller caused by neglect or default on the part of servants of the corporation to take such steps as should reasonably have been taken to examine or test tlie condition of the wire that fell? 2. Was the death of. the said John Miller caused l by neglect or default on the part of the servants of the corporation to maintain the wire in a proper and safe state of repair? 3. Did the servants of the corporation neglect to take any reasonable precaution that should have been taken to test_ and maintain the line? If the answer is in the affirmative state what reasonable precaution should have been taken which was not taken. 4. Assess the damages. The jury retired at 6.20 and returned at 7.30 with negative answers to all questions, making no award of damages. Judgment was given for the defendant with costs as on a claim for £IOOO,