_was all very well for opposing: counsel to suggest what Mr. Watkins might have done prior to the accident, but when a man was on the spot he had to exercise his own judgment to the best of his ability. The Council would be in an exceedingly embarrassing position if the court were to hold that its employees could be held responsible for an error of judgment. "Members of its many different departments were required to exercise their judgment on many occasions and mistakes often occurred. "As long as the Council employs human beings, mistakes will con tinue," declared Mr, Bryan, "it is impossible to prevent mistalces alto-gother. All' that can. be required that a man should exercise his best judgment. That Mr. Watkins did."
His contention was that petitioner, bby giving her consent to the fire drill taking place, and by standing near the window, assumed the risk of what might fake place, and therefore was not entitled to recover. The cause of the accident, the piece of apparatus falling, and ricochetting from the window, certainly did not point to negligence. It sounded a most improbable story, but it was true, Tt was quite possible, though irrational, that the piece of apparatus acted in this way, but no reasonable man could be expected to foresee is, doing 50, "The Council feels very sorry about this accident." said Mr. Bryan, "it Is a very deplorable affair, but there is nothing we can do about it"
Mr. MeDonald: We reject their sympathy.
Mr, Bryan reminded the court that the Secretary-General of the S.C. had stated in a letter that if petitioner would ask a reasonable amount, it would be granted, but petitioner had failed to do 0. dence of Negligence regard with scorn this false attitude "of sympathy." said Mr. MeDonald at the beginning of his summing up. The only point '0 the decided, he said, was the neshs" ence of the Fire Brigade, and in proof of this he would quote five oF si answers from respondent's evidence. "T brought the fire engine too near the building." submitted Mr. Me-Donald, would be held as negligence in any court. "I did not allow any margin of safely" also pointed to negligence, as did the reply "I just made a bad guess."
In his summing up, Mr. Nelson said that negligence consisted of the existence of duty, the breach of that duty, and resulting damages. Mr. Nelson discussed the legal responsi. bility of a municipality, stating that Mr. Bryan, in his summing up, had made it appear as if a municipality in America could not be held responsible In cases of this sort, "In aelual fact," said Mr. Nelson, "there is no city in the United States which cannot be sued because of the torts of its agents and servants." Negligence was failure to exercise due care, Fourth Officer Watkins and Mr. Renaere, together with the other firemen, were under a legal duty to Sbserve the caution which would be exercised by ordinary firemen under the same circumstances.
'Mr. Watkins, when he obtained' permission to conduct the drill, as+ sured Mrs. Schneider that there would be no danger to any of the tenants. Of course he denied this, but it was perfectly ridiculous to say that he had not the power to give an undertaking that there would be no danger in= volved by the drill. "When an assurance was given that there would be injury, and injury resulted, then the person causing the injury was under an' absolute ability, "Where," demanded Mr, Nelson, "ig fireman Number 42? If anyone 1s, a position to know that happened, surely he is, But he has not been called as a witness." Definite errors were made in fixing the apparatus only 13 feet from the edge of the building, and in fixing the angle of elevation at 75 degrees before the extension of the ladder began, Mr. Watkins failed to allow any margin of error in making his calewlations prior to the extension of the ladder, most significant point, said Mr. 'Nelson, was that, on Mr, Watkins' ow. admission in evidence. the previous day, the Shanghai Fire Brigade had since discontinued using escape ladders with hose attachments. fixed to the top, and a definite change of policy had taken place, "The Fire Brigade had decided that it would have to sacrifice speed and efficiency for safety. With regard to the sumption of risk, Mrs, Schneider never anew she was in any danger whatever when gazing out of the window, Earlier in the heating, Mr. R. G. Watkins was re-examined and cross-examined, while evidence was given by Mr. "G. Godfrey Phillips, Secretary of the Shanghai Municipal Council.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.