AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Workmen Did Not Cause Coach Fire

31st May 1957, Page 43
31st May 1957
Page 43
Page 43, 31st May 1957 — Workmen Did Not Cause Coach Fire
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

A N action for damages, arising out of

the destruction by fire of a Leyland coach, brought by Messrs. J. T. Whittle and Son, of Highley, against Sheet Metal Services (Kidderminster), Ltd., coachbuilders, was dismissed by Mr. Justice Salmon at the Worcester Assizes last week. The judge awarded costs to the defendants.

Mr. James Thomas Whittle, of Highley, told the judge that the vehicle, which had been involved in a road accident, was taken to the defendants' premises for repair on July 12, 1955, and collected for week-end work two days later. On July 11 it was returned for the repairs to be completed.

He went to the garage on July 21 and saw the coach had been totally burnt out.

Mr. Henry Miller Gane, a consulting engineer and motor claims assessor, said that before the fire he could see no exposed wires. He assessed the fire damage at between £2,500 and £3,000.

For the defendants, Mr. K. Mynett said that when the vehicle was first brought into the workshop, something was wrong with the wiring and Whittles sent one of their employees to correct it. His clients had nothing to do with the electrical installation. After work ceased on the Tuesday no one went in the coach.

A director of Sheet Metal Services, Ltd., Mr. Edwin Bourne, said that none of his men had ever sat in the coach to eat their lunch. Smoking was not encouraged when employees were working on vehicles.

Dismissing the action, Judge Salmon said he was perfectly satisfied that the staff of Sheet Metal Services, Ltd., were not the type of men to leave a lighted cigarette or match-end in the coach. He was also satisfied that no member of the staff had been inside the vehicle on the day of the fire and that they had taken all reasonable precautions on leaving the works.

He thought it likely that the fault was electrical. There was no negligence on the part of Sheet Metal Services, Ltd., he decided.