LIABILITY OF CONTRACTORS WHEN CUTTING UP STREETS.

Otago Witness, Issue 1341, 11 August 1877, Page 16

LIABILITY OF CONTRACTORS WHEN CUTTING UP STREETS.

A case of considerable importance to contractors waa decided by Mr T. A. Mansford, R.M., at the Dunedin hesdent Magistrate's Court on the Bth. His Worship delivered the following judgment :- -The plaintiff in this case (Bell v. Meikle) sues the defendant, and says that the defendant drove an express over and damaged the works of the plaintiff, who was a contractor lawfully repairing a street called Rattray street, under a contract with the Corporation of the City of Dunedin, for which he claims £20. The evidence on the part of the plaintiff disclosed that on the 6th July, while the plaintiff was carrying out his contract, the defendant went over that portion of the works termed the formation with an express, thereby injuring the works, and as consequential damages, delaying a number of plaintiff's workmen. Sections 57 to 60 of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1865, are referred to as to the powers of making and repairing roads, more particularly with reference to th« power of preventing traffic on any street wnile under repair. The Corporation, however, do not appear to have exercised their power pf cloaing the street, for on perusal of the general conditions of the contract it is stipulated that the public traffic shall not be closed by the works of the contractor, but that if it should be found necessary, temporary arrangements should be provided by the contractor by sidings or temporary footpaths or otherwise as ordered by the Surveyor to prevent stoppage of the public traffic. A large amount of evidence was given to show that tha road as it originally atood was rendered impassable by the formation of the works under the plaintiff's contract, and that in exercising his legitimate culling, the defendant had no alternative bat to make use of that portion of the road which was being formed by the plaintiff. An overwhelming mass of evidence is produced on behalf of the defendant to prove that no injury could result from an express van going over the formation in the plaintiff's contract, and which was in a great measure confirmed by the City Engineer. I have therefore arrived at the conclusion that inasmuch asi the plaintiff by his own action rendered the original road unfit for traffic, and did not provide temporary arrangements by sidings, that the defendant had a right to use the road in the way that he did, and that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover any portion of the sum claimed as damages. Judgment for defendant, with costs.