CO129-627-4 Argyle Street explosion- correspondence on claims and enquiries 1-6-1946 - 31-7-1951 — Page 65

閣

tele honom ;

33258 39209

ajor j. Dorrott,

10

pinanoo jojot,

udan'a

and, (aat,

Ar,

COPY

# 130, 13th July, 1968.

65

Arzyle

し

ference your letter of the 3rd June, 120,

prop

Colicitor, ef. 23/11\/3, as i have recently dealt with similar probleza th-oting drown Jolicitor haa anked me to re, ly.

the

minio, attributed by para rap. 2 of your ist er to odrevea ust not be taken as in en, way expressing the pinion of warm-D) D It is clear that vuce a Alitary Administrati a turd buen est upo in the olay the ordinar las aplieù e copt so far as it pas custod by the rooleations of 10. Gander-in-chief, s to this roclastin o. 1. It is clear therefor: that liswild ty fær ús og ₺. ryna ondroparty as a rogult of explosión tust be dualt with ft. acordance with ordinar legol ·rincipios.

at is the contaion of this Sovomment that whether ɔe is doering sátà ɔcou død enen, tor:itory or with territory recued fræs ena v podupetion the partin; and rendering lør: 1 as 2 du sumiti m and oz losivos la o mnal military risonal. Tit. he foot thru a nititur, ad inla rut x had been set u did not asinish the res ossib1:1ty & the 31ator.. 14 onyWing Insofar as it indiombed

that nɔral conditions had not been r sure it op saised that res onsibility.

Ps

„uite apart fry whether orn ́t there was any such. duty as Lanti, nad in the last era,reph 1: 1s oluer the. the militory authorities.usk in th eyes of the lo be r garded as th, occupiera of the tunuol.

can relip of the tunnel ves of curse veelou in the row but it can the military mri were in possession thereof and sho mượt, shudiing with the tunnel and the ex l/eives therein. n tie fo ting it is considered that even apert run gligones the idli wzy woulu te rus onaiule for daunge to ad, ining raporty.

he Asal Jrka itá v Belvedere vish vuanu 0. 1921 2. +4-0, haring Drone Jo. v lydraulic over so. 1913 3 caselo42 (1314 30 77

5. It is also the contention of this Government that there was actual negligence on the part of the military authorities. The reason for this view has already been fully pointed out in the Colonial Secretary's letter of the 17th June, 1946 (8). There is of course clear authority that where there is negligence liability for personal injury as well as liability for damage to property will follow. See the remarks of the Lembers of the House of Lords in Read v J. Lyons & Co., Ltd., 1947, A. C. see pp. 170, 178, 180, and 186. Note especially that even Lord Macmillan who thought that negligence was essential to maintain an action for personal injury, admitted that "in the case of dangerous things and operations the law has recognised that a special responsibility exists to take care".

16.