JURY GIVES FINDINGS
IN BALCONY COLLAPSE. QUESTION OF PROPER SUPERVISION BY ARCHITECTS INCLUDED.
VERDICT OF
"MISADVENTURE."
"THE HONGKONG TELEGRAPH. TUESDAY, JULY......18,
LONDON STOCK PRICES
MARKET DECIDEDLY
QUIETER
#40
1010-(Lân. Im.): £ 85... ☎ 8445 5% Bonda 1925-47 3 924 @ 80 64 Bhal-Nanking
Rly... @ do 5% Tient Pukow
Rly... 6% Tient-Pakow Railway (Supl. Loan)
6% S'hal-Hang-
chow - Ningpo. Rly,
$ 20-25 € 20-25
# 17-22 £ 17-22
The following quotations on the London Stock Exchange have boon received by Messrs. Swan, Culbertson The market: Gilt-edged securities and Fritz in conjunction with Router. are firmer, otherwise, the market is 5% Honan Rly... 10 decidedly-qulater.
6% Hukuang Rly.
∙1011.....
the case against the contractor was sufficient to constitute reasonable of course depended on what the
supervision of the work.
jury found Mr. Lano had done in absolutely at an end.
"My submission therfore is that the case. He pointed out the Mr. Jenkin stated that it was possible that the collapse might in this case there le no evidenoo be difference between the evidenge prove to be the subject of civil fore you which is sufficient to find of Mr. Lane and that of Mr. action, and he reminded the jury Mr. Lane gulity of any negligence," Moore, of the P.W.D. whom he described as the only independant once more that in an inquiry such ho said.
Mr. Lo's Address.
witness. In the injury. "It' as the one In which they wore
common senso," engaged, the negligence which Mr. M, K. Lo prefaced his address clear law and would satisfy them would have to by assuring the Coroner and the said Mr. Lo, "and it has been a be a very much higher degree of jury that he did not wish to take point conceded by Mr. Lane him- negligence than would satisfy a advantage of the fact that he had self, that he should inspect the Jury in a civil action,
the last word. "I can only say rods. The point for the jury is "I put it to you with confidence," that Mr. Jenkin has very fairly a simple one. Did Mr. Lane in Dealing with the contractor, of compotent Mr. Jonkin concluded, "that there addressed the jury. I propose, to spect the rode?"
Mr. Lo pointed out that one of The Coroner's enquiry held in- the supplying of proper materials
tho clauses In the specification
July 17. July 18. to the death of Cheng Tai, an and the providing amah, who was killed in the col-workmen. Mr. Jenkin submitted has been no criminal neglect of duty address you as if Mr. Jenkosto
Speaking as to the cause of death, read, "I have seen the plans and 44% Bends 1893 and know
understand them,"
£100 (Eng. Iss.).... £100 lapse of a balcony in No. 15, that the contractor had carried out by the contractor in this case, and Mr. Armstrong have not spoken a
Mr. Lo said that happily there Was The duty of the contractors 44% Loan 1008. & 824 £824 Yuk Sau Street. in which these duties. With regard to the 1 pat it to you also that you should all," he said.
question of supervision, the contrac. absolve him from any responsibility
no dispute about that. It was con- thoroforo was to build according 6% Loan 1912... 564 £ 50% schoolgirl, Jessie Honson, was tor of course had to supervise the whatever.”
"Mr." Armstrong's Address.
ceded by everybody throughout the to the plan and to have a reason- 5% Reorg. Loan also killed, was brought to a work or employ an agent to do so.
Mr. Armstrong, addressing the enquiry that the collapse of the able amount of supervision. If close yesterday afternoon, the The evidence had shown that he had jury returning a verdict of death employed such a foreman, and more.
over the architect had not objected jury, said he associated himself.sub. verandah was caused by the steel they had not had that reasonable due to misadventure.
Mr. Schofield sat us Coroner at to the foreman though he was on-stantially with what Mr. Jenkiti had bars in the cantilever balcony slabamount of supervisión, then they do appeal to you gentlemen to the inquiry and the special jury em.titled to do so if he found any fault said. "As far as the liability of being placed on the bottom, when'in also wero guilty of negligence.
was
Chinesó Bonds
approach your task with absolute fourlessness and not to worry No Inferior Material.
about the personal element at all. It was not alleged against the I know you will do this as a duty was contractor that be supplied In-because of the oath you haye
he fact they should have been placed therofore in violent deviation from panelled comprised Messrs. R. A. with him. Further the contractor the architect was concerned,
Colbourne himself gave a certain amount of said "you will have to pay regard to at the top. The structure Rodgers (foreman),
personal supervision and there was the same points."
It was for the jury to say who- tho,plan, the construction Little, and Li Koon-chun.
reasonable or to be disastrous. Mr. F. C. Jenkin, K.C. (instruct. evidence that he visited the sites Woo and Nash appeared for the hour on each occasion. "I put it in this case was contractors, Messrs. Wang Tak to you that that supervision was otherwise. He pointed out that it
ed by Mr. F. E. Nash, of Messrs, twice a day and stayed about anther the work done by the architect fundamentally wrong and was bound ferler material. That point did taken, and also what you owe to
and Co., Mr. H. J. Armstrong of nothing other than it should have had been held that it was not the that no one was responsible for the not. The contractor, had said he
yani.
Mr. Jenkin's Address.
Could Do No More.
£ 88-19 $, 87-33
10
0 28
12
2 29 5% Lung Tsing U.
Hai Rly, 1913. & 121⁄4
Foreign Bonds & Banks.
German 7% In- tornat. Loan 1024
84% B014
Japan 6% Sterling
Loan 1807 .... £ 82% 2824 Japan 8% Sterling Loan 1924.
& 901 & 00% Industrials & Browerles
Bloc.
Associated
Brit-Amor. Tob..
Industries.** 22/3 22/0
Jury's Verdict. The Coroner then reviewed the Chinese Eng. &
Min... evidence, and the jury after re- tiring for an hour returned the J. P. Coats following verdict.
Guinness
110/7% 110/716
32/4 82/0
60/0 BD/G
89/1 88/4".
78/0
78/3
34/1234/-
20/3
29/8
44/3. 44/0
98/0 97/0
29/9 20/0
106/9 106/-
29/-
20/
Courtaulda "1.Death was due to col-Distillers lapse of the balcony by renson Dunlop Rubber of the placing of steel bars in Everready A wrong position, and was, General Elec. therefore, due to misadventure. "The contractor's foremen misunderstood the details of Impl. Chem. In- the steel work, and placed the bars wrongly, and the person or Impl. Tobacco persons responsible for super- International Toa
Stores vision failed to perform their duties in checking the position Internat, Nickol, . $ 20% $ 20% of the steel bars before
Pinchin Johnson. concrete was poured.
Turner & Newall "We recommend measures Unilever
Mr. Lo said that if it was held not arise in a search as to whethe dead".
ther the contractor was liable or did not understand the cantilever. luty of the architest to see to all collapse, such a doclslon would send minor detalls that would ronder the shudder through the Colony.
principle nor had he inspected the carrying on of the architect's There could only be three persons fron bars when the laying of con- Messrs. Deacons, for the architect, heen," said Mr. Jenkin.
responsible for the collapse-the crote took place. Mr. A. J. Lano, and Mr. M. K. Lo, and Le, for the
It was part of the contractor's supervision an impossibility.
Mr. Lo then went over the evid Mr. Armstrong said that there owner, the architect and the con- of Messrs. Lo
regard to the owner of the house, Mr. Kwok Wal-duty to see that the architect was
brought upon the scene before the was no reported case in England in tractor. With
contractor, pointing out that none The which the architect had been found owner, Mr. Lo argued that when ence of the various foremen of the cement concrote was 'alled in. evidence showed that the contractor to be criminally, guilty of mans- a man paid $140,000 to a contre of them ever inspected the laying In the course of his address to did in fact do this. "What else flaughter. That showed how far the tor to build houses, and $7,000 to the rods and the pouring in of
vise the house, auch a man prima the jury on behalf of the contractor, is there that it is conceivable thint architect had to go before he could an architect to build and super- the concrete. He asked if that
that this man should personally have be found guilty of auch a charge.
The architect, he said, could not facie could not be held to blame was good and proper supervision Mr. Jenkin reminded them
Referring to the collapse of an- their finding might send any person done," he asked.
Dealing with the law, Mr. Jenkin be held responsible in a case where for defective design or defcetlye by the contractor.
sug-
other verandah in You Sau to the Criminal Sessions of the
was re-the owner insisted on superseding construction. There was a on a charge of said that the contractor Supreme Court
Haid, quired to take that care that was the architect's judgment. There gestion by Mr. Armstrong, he he manslaughter. That
The usual had been a considerable conflict of sald, that the owner was in some Street on September 10, 1931, should make them doubly careful usual in this matter. before making finding that would course to be taken by a contractor evidence in the case as to what the way responsible because the work Mr. Lo asked the jury whether they
sub-ed in the work of building the concrete. He implicate his off anybody was to provide competent men owner's foremen did and what they by his overseers had been ram-could imagine any person interuat- else concerned in the very dnhappy and foremen and to go to the pre-were there for. The evidence show-ming.
mises periodically to satisfy him-ed that they were perpetually inter-mitted that that must be thrown balcony in the same street having occurrence.
He asked the jury to suppose that self that everything wan, going onfering in the work. Ho submitted overboard. after Mr. Moore's evl-failed to take note of this collapse, that it was of the greatest possible dence, because the whole thing whore the cause was the same as somebody had suggested that the properly.
said interest to the owner how the work was not a question of ramming at in the present case. liable for mane Continuing, Mr. Jenkin contractor was
Owner's Position. laughter. In order to find that, it there were two theories as to the was proceeding, and he had no doubt all. would be essential for the jury to cause of the collapse, and the polut that the owner was present on the And four things, namely (1) that therefore arose as to whether the site practicaly every day. "I ask
With regard to the owner's poal-
the
a
to be taken to deal with archl-
tects who fail to superviso their work properly.
With regard to the steps neces sary to prevent a recurrence of such an accident, Mr. Lo said he thought none were necessary as
dustries..
4-We wish to express our Anglo-Dutch sympathics with the relatives of Burma Corpn... the dead."
Jury Thanked. The Coroner.-Gentlemen
:
841-
83/0
32/9
33/3
29/0
20/0
Miscellaneous
:
10/0 17/6 13/10 18/0
Canadian Pacific
Rly.
$ 20% $ 21
Gala Kalumpong
Rubber
16/0 17/0
Trepen Mines
Estates
18/10 18/0 27/- 27/- 18/- 18/- 22/0 28/0 Б3/9 53/9 31/10 31/10%
Oils
the contractor personally owed a bars wore Inid as per plan or whe-you to consider why he should go to tion, Mr. Lo said he was not try long as the architect and contraç- duty as to the possible use of the ther they were laid as found. It the extent of denying this, and in Ing to be flowery, but Mr. Kwok tor did their duty, No new law thank you for your long and Langlaagte·· halcony, (2) that in the discharge was difficult to believe that the rois my submission, he had something did feel a very overwhelming re was required; unless it of that duty he was negligent, (3) were not in fact laid down na they to conceal. What it was, I cannot sponsibility to his brother for the exhortation to the architect and and. for your care and attention London Tin
was a
patient hearing in this inquiry,
·
13 of his niece,
well say. These foremen did something death
in coming to a verdict. It has Rubber Trusts
Shai. Elec. Constr. been a long hearing; about seven Van Ryn Deep.. as to the family of the smah who contractor to do their duty. if the jury found personal negli-were found.
A clause in the specification else than to act an foremen".
Unpleasant Duty. gence, that thut personal negligence
Continuing, Mr. Armstrong said died. He invited them by their
hearings I think.
Mr. Lo. Ten hearings, your was the cause of death, and (4) if stated that the architect was the
"We live in a small place," said to be found sole judge as to whether the work that in this case if the jury found verdict to clear the owner of any at all in the the contractor was criminally responsible, the jury to be done conformed with the work Mr. Lane guilty of negligence, they responsibility
The Coroner. I shall forward Anglo-Persian Oil would have to find a very much as planned by him. As far as the would have to disregard entirely the collapse. He felt they would do Mr. Lo. "The duty of finding any Worship.
finding fault against anyone is your names to the Chief Justice Burmah Oil Higher degree of negligence than contractor was concerned, there was evidence that he (Mr. Lane) and so, and that his appeal had not one guilty of blame, and
has not for exemption for
period Royal Dutch. nothing more to the case once that Mr. Tong gave with regard to the been made in vain.
Mr. Lo submitted that Mr. Lane an unpleasant one, would be necessary in a civil case.
the steel bars. In his submission, Mr. appreciated. If
"was guilty of the grossest been a pleasant duty for me to which he may feel disposed to Shell Trans. As regards the duty of the con-fact was tractor, Mr. Jenkin said that there architect passed the balcony as Lane's and Mr. Tong's attendance were some obvious duties, such as being in conformity with the plans, periodically to inspect the bars was negligence" in this case, but that make these submissions to you. grant.
It
of
any
Trad.
457- 44/44 91/3 80/776 21%21%
66/-
64/4
KANNY
8
GLADY'S
PARKER
FLEOLU, S. PAT. OFF.
© 1995 BY HEA SERVICE, INC.