WINDSCREEN BROKEN BY INSPECTOR

Southland Times, Issue 24536, 10 September 1941, Page 4

WINDSCREEN BROKEN BY INSPECTOR

COUNCIL TO MEET CLAIM OF CAR OWNER Whether the City Council was liable for damage accidentally caused to a motor-vehicle by the traffic inspector in the course of his duties was discussed by the City Council last night. It was decided to meet the claim of the owner of the car. A confidential report on the incident was before the council, but no recommendation was made by the Works Committee. In response to an inquiry by Cr G. J. Reed, the chairman of the committee (Cr A. Scott) said that no claim had been formally made to the council. Cr Reed disagreed with that statement and said the report stated that the owner of the car had demanded payment of half the cost of a new windscreen and had rung up the traffic inspector twice. A responsible officer of the council had done damage to personal property in the course of his duties. The council had an opportunity to pay half the cost of a new windscreen. If it did not accept the offer it would certainly have to pay the full cost and the cost of a summons as well. The facts were simple, said Cr Scott. In the course of his duties the traffic inspector (Mr E. Stopford) had found it necessary to paste a notice on a motor-vehicle. Because it was raining he could not put the document outside the windscreen, so he put it on the inside of the glass. As he was pressing it on, the glass fell out. The committee considered that there was contributory negligence on the part of the owner. Cr Reed: Contributory negligence? Cr Scott: Yes, the glass was cracked. Cr Reed: But you can’t break it. Cr Scott: I don’t think any court would award damages against the council. Cr Reed: Too right it would. . It was decided to pay half the cost of a new windscreen as requested by the owner.