|
Responsibility for the Bridge Dis-
The City Council of Victoria Found
After Ten Days' Investigation the
After spending ten days in
the hearing of evidence and six and three-quarter hours in deliberation
upon the testimony adduced, the coroner's jury empanelled to fix the responsibility
for the fatality on May 26 at Point Ellice bridge, yesterday afternoon
brought in their verdict and were dismissed from further attendance.
The finding holds the Consolidated Electric Railway Co. directly responsible
for the catastrophe, the City Council of Victoria being found guilty of
contributory negligence, and is in full as follows:
(Sd.)
"JOHN NICHOLLES, foremanTo this verdict the following rider was appended: "We desire to suggest to the authorities the desirability of all bridges, trestles, etc., both municipal and the property of railway companies, being placed under complete governmental inspection and control, and the carrying capacity thereof posted thereon." On the reopening of the inquiry yesterday E.A.. Wilmot, city engineer, was recalled to the stand, and stated that he had not absolute charge of his department. It had been the custom of chairmen of the various city departments to give directions regarding works coming under them; in matters not considered to require particular knowledge of engineering the chairmen have not considered it necessary always to consult him. He had no letter of instructions defining his duties; he had made recommendations, sometimes to the street committee, hat had not been carried out. He recalled one instance where his plans were interfered with: he had prepared plans for a bridge on the Landsdowne road and the work was not carried out according to them; the street committee had power to ignore his work. he had no power to carry out work irrespective of the council--the council reserved the right to dismiss his assistants without his consent. This had inconvenienced him sometimes, and he had not the same authority over his subordinates as if he appointed them himself. He had been consulted about the appointment of his subordinates, but not always. Cox, the city carpenter, was in the city's employ before witness became city engineer; streets, sidewalks and bridges all came under Wilson now. Witness' duties were too numerous to allow him time to thoroughly inspect the bridges. There was more work for him to do than he could accomplish in office hours. He had never had a vacation since he had been appointed, not that he had been refused, but he had felt he had not time to take one. |
Street Superintendent Wilson, also recalled,
stated that he was appointed bridge inspector, his letter of appointment
stating that he was to take charge under Mr. Wilmot's instructions.
In 1895 as street foreman he took orders for trifling jobs from the chairman
of the streets committee, but in larger ones from Mr. Wilmot. Witness
had not employed the men working now in the James Bay bridge. When
asked how it was that someone else had employed men to work on a
structure he had charge of, witness replied, "That's what I want to know
myself?" Witness considers himself responsible for all the bridges
in the city, even for the work being done by those men on James Bay bridge;
if the work was not done properly he would "kick" to Mr. Wilmot, and if
Mr. Wilmot did not interfere that was where witness' responsibility ended.
On important points his "kicks" were in writing, so he could keep a record
of them; he considered he should have been consulted before the men were
engaged to work on James Bay bridge. He could not call Cox a competent
bridge man.
This completing the testimony, the coroner proceeded to address the jury. They must start at the beginning of the history of the bridge. Was it, when it was built, properly constructed for the traffic it had to carry; was it capable of being used for tramcar traffic? He thought. He thought they would find that when the bridge was put up in 1885 it was a good enough bridge for highway traffic, but it was not built with a view to carrying tram cars. As to whether it was fit in 1890 to allow tramway traffic to be carried over it, there was a difference of opinion among the witnesses. In considering this, they must remember that no expert had said that cars weighing more than twelve tons should be permitted to run over the bridge; that all the expert testimony agreed that 18-ton cars were beyond the bridge's capacity. When the government first gave permission to the tramway company to use the bridge the cars were small, and it must be considered that it was the duty of the company when they put on heavier cars to notify the city; but, as far as he knew, the company had neither done this nor had they taken any steps towards finding out if the bridge was strong enough to carry the heavier cars. The tramway company were under a moral obligation to find out if the bridge were safe, and it was their legal and moral duty to see that the bridge was in a safe condition. No company had the right to take it as a matter of fact that because they were given the right to run over the bridge, the structure was safe. he proceeded to read from the Criminal Code the following sections bearing on the broad principle of responsibility: "Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to two years' imprisonment who, by any unlawful act, or by any willful omission or neglect of duty endangers or causes to be endangered the safety of any person conveyed or being in or upon a railway, or aids or assists therein." "Every one who has in his charge or under his control anything whatever, whether animate or inanimate, or who erects, makes or maintains anything whatever which, in the absence of precaution or care, may endanger human life, is under legal duty to take reasonable precautions against, and use reasonable care to avoid, such danger, and is criminally responsible for the consequence of omitting, without lawful excuse, to perform that duty. The jury should consider whether or not any responsibility rested on the tramway company, if, when they increased the size of the cars they took no precautions. The company seemed neither to have consulted the city engineer nor to have tried to find out if the bridge were maintained in a state of safety by those responsible for it. There was not the least doubt that the bridge had been utterly neglected from the time that it was built and there had been no proper inspection of it. Whose duty was it to keep the bridge in a state of safety? The Mayor and council acted in exactly the same capacity as the government of the country, and so were primarily responsible for the safety of life and property in the city. Their responsibility was generally shifted to the shoulders of the servants under them, but in this particular instance there was quite a difference of opinion--some witnesses held that the responsibility of looking after the bridge fell on the city engineer, others that the city carpenter had it under his charge. It had been stated in evidence that the city engineer never had his duties explained to him or definitely defined, and, moreover, it had been shown that he was completely under the thumb of the council and the streets committee, and it was shown that his recommendations to the council have at times been completely ignored. For instance, the probability is that if his advice had been taken about putting in iron floor beams when the bridge was repaired in 1892 there would have been no inquiry like this to-day. Under the circumstances the Coroner could not see how the engineer should be held responsible. A man to be responsible must have full control of that for which he was responsible. As to the city carpenter, it was too absurd to hold him responsible for Point Ellice bridge. An ordinary mechanic could not be expected to do the work of a skilled engineer. Then again, had the city council taken any steps to have the bridge inspected? The only thing that could be found in this connection was a report by Cox last year stating that the bridge was in good condition; and as the city council seemed to be satisfied with that report, it seems to show that they looked upon Cox as responsible. As to the exact cause of the accident, whether it was a floor beam or a hanger to go first mattered not. The cause of the accident was undoubtedly the neglect to maintain the bridge in a efficient state to do the work put upon it. He would advise the jury not to put the blame on half a dozen parties but to limit the responsibility as clearly as possible to the parties actually and really responsible. After being so instructed, the jury retired shortly before 11 o'clock, and almost seven hours later returned the verdict given above. |