Manawatu Standard (PUBLISHED DAILY.) The Oldest Daily Newspaper on the West Coast. MONDAY, JUNE 30, 1884. RESPONSIBILITY OF ROAD BOARDS.

Manawatu Standard, Volume IV, Issue 182, 30 June 1884, Page 2

Manawatu Standard ( PUBLISHED DAILY.) The Oldest Daily Newspaper on the West Coast. MONDAY, JUNE 30, 1884. RESPONSIBILITY OF ROAD BOARDS.

At the civil sittings of the Wellington Supreme Court an action was brought against the Kilbirnie Highway Board to recover the sum of <£*600 as damages sustained by plaintiff m consequence of a severe fall he sustained when crossing a culvert within the boundaries of the Kilbirnie Road District. The plaintiff desposed that on the date specified, while crossing a culvert with stone abutments, his horse's fore-feet went through the flooring, causing the plaintiff a very severe fall, from the effects of which he was not likely ever to recover. So severe was the fall that several teeth were knocked out, and the plaintiff was so dazed and stunned that when he was met he was leading his horse m the opposite direction to that towards his home. Medical evidence was adduced to the effect that the shock of the fall had been so severe that paralysis would probably . ultimately superI vene. Other evidence was called proving the existence of the hole m the road at the culvert m question which was said to be three feet : deep by four feet wide. Counsel I" for the defence questioned whether there had been any evidence of negligence, except on the ground that I the accident was of itself sufficient evidence of negligence. It was a question whether the board with its limited power of rating was bound to keep the road completely m repair. His Honor remarked that the present instance was the first, he believed, of such an action being brought against a local body. It was of very great importance that they should find out what were the exact liabilities of these bodies. He was of opinion that it would be advisable to allow the question as to existence of negligence to go to the jury. For the defence, Nicholas • JVlarchant, C.E., deposed that the culvert m question was built, under his supervision, for the City Council. He should pass the. drain as a good safe one at the present time. In cross-examination he admitted that tlie drain at times must be the channel for a very large amount of water, seeing- that it was situated at the foot of a gully. The collapse of the drain would no doubt be due to the damage caused by large stones coming from this gully. Counsel for the defendants, (the Highway Board) | said that there was two questions for the consideration of the jury — firstly, whether the board had been guilty of negligence; and .secondly, upon that assumption, what damages weresustained anddue. Mr Shaw, m reply, said that the defendant body was a properly constituted board, which had to see that roads left open to traffic should be kept m a proper state of repair. It was evident that the construction of the bridge was faulty. If the ratepayers of small districts chose to assume the control of their roads, they should be taught the responsibility they incurred. His Honor, m summing up, said the case was one of considerable public 'importance. The first and principal question was

whether the defendant body had been guilty of negligence. They must take it as granted that the board was liable for the care and management of all district roads within the boundary. It was evidently, however, not possible to do all this without a certain amount of expenditure. Brick or stone culverts would have prevented the accident, but their expense put them out of the reach of these boards. If people were travelling from Hokotika to Christchurch, or through the Manawatu Gorge, they must be content with the means of traffic provided by the local bodies with the revenue at their command. Still road boards must not keep works which were " a delusion and a snare." For the original defective construction, however, the board was not liable -, but such works should be looked after. Consequently the first construction brought a burden to the Board. As to the question of negligence, it. had been shown that the warden m charge of this subdivision of the district did not become aware of the hole caused by the accident till the Monday following. The warden also said that he had originally gone over all the roads of the district, but had not seen the culvert m question often^ so that it appeared there was no regular inspector. Mr Marchant had allowed that this drain was one which was liable, from its position, to be disturbed and injured. It was most emphatically a question to be viewed m a practical light. He should leave it to the jury to say whether they thought the defendant body was guilty of. negligence. The two questions before the jury were — negligence or no negligence, and what damage, had been sustained. His Honor pointed out the Road Board being simply an agent, the action was against the ratepayers of the district. The jury, after a few minutes deliberation returned a verdict m favor of the defendant.