AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

A Broken Gas Main.

21st November 1912
Page 15
Page 15, 21st November 1912 — A Broken Gas Main.
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?

At the Oldham County Court, en the 13th inst., the Oldham Corporation endeavoured to recover the sum of E2 ea. 3d. from Mr. Norman E. Box, the well-known motor contractor of Manchester.

It appears that one of the defendant's traction engines, on the 29th August last, while engaged in drawing a boiler, damaged a gas main. The Corporation contended that there had been negligence in the manner in which the tractian engine had been used.

The Judge said that the total weight of the vehicle and the boiler might be taken as 20 tons, and the question was whether this was excessive weight. within the meaning of the extraordinary-traffic section • of the 178 Act. He asked counsel for the claimant if he could find anything which entitled him to recover for damage to gas mains caused by traffic going over them. Counsel admitted there was no special provision for that, except in regard to any driver (who was not sued in this case) who shall "carelessly or accidentally break through, down, or damage any pipe, !amp, etc., shall pay a sum of money as satisfacfrion to the undertakers for the damage done, not exceeding El"

The Judge held that there was no statutory provision enabling the Corporation to recover for the damage to the gas mains. In common law. the boiler and the traction engine had the right to go along the highway, and in consequence of that lawful usage they had broken the gas main.

After further argument, judgment was entered for the defendant, with costs on the higher scale. We wonder why the 1818 Act was cited?

Tags

Organisations: Oldham County Court
People: Norman E. Box
Locations: Manchester

comments powered by Disqus