DAMAGES AWARDED.

Taranaki Daily News, 20 June 1925, Page 12

DAMAGES AWARDED.

FURNITURE VAN FALLS. Judgment for £94 10s has been given Zor the New Zealand Express Company in the action brought against the Railway Department in respect of damage caused to the contents of a furniture van through a rope filing breaking while it was being lifted from a truck at the New Plymouth goods yards after discharge from the Corinna. Delivering his reserved judgment yesterday, the magistrate (Mr. A. M. Mowlem, S.M.i said that the first question was whether the van was a furniture van within the meaning of the regulations of the -Railway Department. If it was a furniture van counsel for respondent admitted that the department must pay the amount of damage sustained whether it was a case of negligence or not, because the department were insurers. If, however, negligence alone was proved, then according to a section of lhe Government Railways Act the liability of the department was restricted to £lO. A ma*? of evidence had been taken on the subject, and the outcome was that the van w’as considered and recognised as a furniture van of class B. Mt. Mow lem went on to point out that part of the regulation of “Loading and unloading to be done by owners” had never been insisted on, the work having always been done in the past by the department, but at the cost of the consignees. The reason was obvious, as the instance showed, it being absolutely out of the question for the ou ner under the circumstances to load and discharge the van himself.

“For thu various reasons mentioned therefore I am of opinion it-hat the respondent is liable, and I hold accordingly that there ia no doubt whatever that this furniture van and its contents met with senous damage whilst it was still in respondent’s possession and under his custody and control on January JB. 1802,” said the magistrate. As to the question of negligence, it did not appear iMcflfesary in view of the above findings to decide the question. But, in view of future possibilities, the magistrate considered that it might be expedient to state his findings on the question, and he found that negligence had been proved on the following particulars; (I) Failure to weigh; (g) failure to use the wire sling; it had been said that the presence of the wire filing was alone «d Indication of the weight, yet Ennis had. used a rope iling; (3) the failure to protect the rope from being frayed or cut by the corners of the van. The magistrate was unable to see that any negligence was attached to the use of an L wagon.

“On the whole case judgment will be -riven for plaintiff for £94 lOs,” said Mowlem in conclusion. Court coats amounted to II a.