Owner says sorry to quake victim's family - gets man's identity wrong

Christopher Smith. Photo / Supplied

The owner of a building which collapsed in the February earthquake killing a man has extended his condolences to the man's family but, in an embarrassing error, confused the man's identity.

Monty Claxton was giving evidence at the Royal Commission of Inquiry today into the collapse of his building at 265-271 Manchester St - a two-storey unreinforced masonry structure on the corner of Manchester and Gloucester Streets.

After giving evidence, Mr Claxton paused at the commission to extend his condolences to the family of the man who died as a result of his building's collapse, but described him as a "young Irish chap travelling the world", when in fact Christopher Smith, 48, was a Leeston father of four boys.

Mr Claxton said he had children overseas and knew how hard it would be to have lost a loved one. He may have been confusing Mr Smith with Irishman Owen McKenna, 40, who was killed when masonry fell on his car at the intersection of Manchester and Lichfield Streets.

Mr Smith was parked outside a dairy at 269 Manchester St on February 22 and his car was crushed by falling rubble from the building's collapse. He was rescued by firemen from inside the vehicle but, despite medical treatment, he died as a result of his injuries. Mr Smith had just dropped his son, Dean, off at school when the quake struck.

Mr Claxton said he only knew the man's name and had only become aware of the fact someone had died outside his building a month after the earthquake.

"We had no idea that masonry from the building had fallen onto someone's car....The authorities never told us."

Some seismic work had been done on the building in the past, including the removal of parapets, the adding of a concrete bond beam, the tying of the roof and floor to the walls and the adding of a concrete frame to a wall opening on the ground floor. However, the building was still considered to be "earthquake prone" by city council policy.

Mr Claxton said that when he purchased the building in 2002 he had been reassured by the fact that the seismic works had been completed.

"When we bought the building the real estate agent told us the building had been lifted to the council's earthquake level and that the parapets had been removed for safety. It appeared to all intents and purposes to be a safe and sound building."

He had been aware of the building's earthquake prone status, but only through reading about it in the newspapers.

"That would have come up in recent years in various sources. I would have read about that in the newspaper. I'd never been approached by the city council [about it]."

The building was green stickered after the September 4 earthquake, when a level one rapid assessment showed no noticeable damage. A subsequent level two rapid assessment completed by Opus Engineers confirmed the building's green status, although the engineers found various cracks and recommended repairs.

Mr Claxton said he had found the whole process "confusing" and was "hazy" as to whether he had ever spoken to the Opus engineers.

"Regulations and how things should be done were foreign to us...This was a very confusing time. None of us had heard of green stickers, red stickers."

Contractors Maxim Projects carried out the repairs which had been identified as necessary by Opus.

In their engineering report, Opus also recommended further checking of the building, including bricks on the above parapets. Mr Claxton said he had not known this was recommended, as he had only read their report two weeks ago.

However, he said he was up on scaffolding at that level and did not see any loose bricks.

"The building was in good condition. The brick work was in good condition... If there had been serious damage I would have taken it seriously. If there had been light damaged I would have tackled it lightly," Mr Claxton said.

"I don't really understand what [Opus engineer Puvi Mohanaraj] was talking about. He, don't forget, was standing on the ground looking up."

The building was not inspected after the Boxing Day aftershock and Mr Claxton said he had not thought it necessary get an inspection done.

"I didn't initiate an inspection on that building after the first one or after the second one because there was no damage to the building, that's why."

He said he was on first name basis with the twelve tenants in the building and none of them had been concerned or asked for more detailed inspections.

"We're not absentee landlords; it's a building we knew intimately. There was no damage on the Boxing Day aftershock that caused me to want an inspection carried out."

The hearing continues this afternoon, with a city council representative and engineers who inspected the building giving evidence.