The Liability of Engine Owners

Southland Times, Issue 19553, 6 May 1905, Page 1

The Liability of Engine Owners

BECK v. COLLIE

At tho Magistrate’s Court yesterday Mr W. G. Riddell, S.M., gave judgment in the case Joseph Beck, Wairio, v. S; Collie, Otautau, as follows :— “ In this action plaintiff claims 1.95, damages for the destruction by firo of his oaten stack and other acts, caused us he alleges, by insufficient power of the defendant’s engine and its negligent! management, on the 14th January.* De-

fendant admits that a spark from hia engine caused the damage, but resists the claim on the ground that the en* gino was powerful enough for the work j that ho took reasonable precautions to prevent a fire ; and that plaintiff acquiesced in and approved of these precautions. The evidence shows tfiat de*

fendant was using a 4*horse power Hornsby engine and a Commonwealth bagger ; that he ctioso tho usual posh tion' for his engine, namely, ihe windward side of the stack, uythout objec-

tion on tho part of tho plaintiff ; that he had no spark arrester ; that a fresh breeze was blowing ; that he knew that he had filad a fire with the sapie engine some days before, and that plaintiff was unaware of this. The coal used by de* fendant was supplied by tho plaintiff and both knew its qualities. As to the strength of the engine, I find that it does not seem to have been worked to its full capacity, and two of plaintiff’s wit/ nekses state that so long as the chaff, cutter was fed lightly the engine could do its work without any undue strain. It was shown that there was always a risk of fire in chaff-cutting or threshing, and on this occasion the risk was greater than in the moister season or on a calm day. Tho majority of the wit nesses say that it is usual to use spark arresters of some kind, although they also say that these articles -are not ol much use, and this is supported by ex* pert evidence. Yet it was shown that a spark arrester minimised the risk of fire, especially wfaen an engine is worki ing well within its power. The defendant says he has been cutting chaff (or six years, that at fi“st he used a spark arrester and that Hogan’s fire was his first accident. Since then ho fed lighter, sharpened the knives oftener and attended to the engine himself. This shows he was fully aware of the risk ho was running. He was in charge of a dangerous machine, and it was his duty to take all necessary precautions to pre-

vent it doing damage to the property o f another. Boven says, '* Negligence isf (he absence of care according to tha circumstances.” It is thus a varying quantity, and in the case of chaff-cutting it is evident that greater care must ba exercised in a dry season and on ai windy day than in an ordinary season and oil a calm day. The case of Thomas v. the St. Western Colliery Co (10, T.L.R, 244), illustrates the amount of earn which is expected from those who use dangerous machines or plants in proximity to an inflammable article. In that case a kind of brattice clntfa was kept without accident for a long time in proximity to an engine wfiich emitted sparks. This cloth was known to bo inflammable and at last an accident pened through its catching lire, resulting in a large number of men in tho mine Using their lives. In an action for damages the defendants were held liable for negligence for not taking tttio precaution that they should have taken to prevent an accident. Again, in the case of Horspafl v. Ohrystall (At R. 12th September, I 860) 'the 'Supreme Court of Victoria decided that ” a person in charge of an engine close to a stack was liable for its destruction, and was guilty of negligence in using the engine without a sparki catcher. Although the plaintiff supplied the iuel he knew (here was no spark catcher on the engine.” On the whole seeing that de, fendant was peculiarly aware of the risk attached in his work on t lie engine without a spark arrester I r.m of opinion that on this occasion' he failed to take the precaution a reasonable mar. would halve taken td prevent a fire, ar.d he is liable for the damage done. Ido not think that the plaintiff with his limited knowledge can be said to have agreed that these precautions were sufficient. Plaintiff estimates the quantity of tho straw on the stack destroyed by reference to a former stack containing tons, and says there were two leads more in the one burnt. Defendant says that owing to the dry season tho weight of the straw would be reduced by IJ. tons, and I am inclined to agroo with this. I fix the quantity of straw destroyed at IQh tons and, estimating the 85 bags of chaff saved at 75111 each, a balance of 7 tons 13 cwt. is left, for ai’iich the plaintiff is-entitled to payment. Calculated at £2 10s per ton, less cost of cutting,, which I estimate at 5s per ton, this amounts to £l7 49 3d. I am also satisfied that the plaintiff lost 2GO bags. <t tarpaulin and a coat for Which he is entitled to their value £lO 4s. Judgment for plaintift for £27 Ss 3d. with costs .27 35.” Mr Stout appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr W. Macalister for the d'fendant.