HEAVY DAMAGES

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 56, Issue 26, 12 November 1935, Page 3

HEAVY DAMAGES

WOMAN INJURED BY MOTOR-CAR

ACCIDENT ON CROWDED FOOTPATH.

(Per Press Association). AUCKLAND, November 11. The motor accident in Karangahape Road last Christmas Eye, when a motor-car charged along a crowded footpath, was recalled in a claim for damages brought before Mr Justice Fair and a jury in the Supreme Court. The plaintiff was Mrs Maria Ecclestone, of Auckland (Mr GoMdmg), who claimed £3500 general and £1073 special damages, making £45/3 m all, from James KiUen, a farmer, of Matangi, Cambridge (Mr West). The defendant was in charge of the motorcar that struck Mrs Ecclestone, audit was alleged that the accident was caused by his negligence, in starting the car while the «eais were engaged, and in failing vo app y th lmon?the injuries the plaintiff claimed °to have suffered were severe shock dislocation and fracture o hip, fracture of the pelvis, and a compound fracture of a lowei leg. might still be necessary to ampvta the leg, Mr Gouldurg The plaintiff was the wife of a. pe™« nen disabled soldier. She « J . Christmas shopping with liei 1» when the defendants car suddenly started leaping and funding along the footpath and knocked down a nunibe, of people, among them being pl The *defendant admitted negligence, and so the case was narrowed down to the question of damages continued counsel. The plaintiff ■ had snfleied very serious injuries indeed She jv at least permanently partially disable for life, and might further suftei the loss of a leg. The expenses she had incurred to date were just short o £3OO and the. estimates went to shov that ’a further sum of approximate y £7O might he incurred befoie the woman’s treatment was complete I hat sum included amounts for artificial limbs, for assistance necessary m the home, and,,for medical treatment. The plaintiff was carried into court on a stretcher hy constables, and gave evidence as to her injuries and expenses. , ~ Mr West contended that the piesent claim was out of all proportion to the injuries. The history of the claim would enable the jury to understand why' the defence considered it excessive. Last June a claim was made for £2500, and a month later this was increased to £4500. , . Medical evidence was given tor the plaintiff and the defendant. His Honor said the object of the law was to put a person who was injured back as nearly as possible to the same position financially as he or she was in before %he accident. Rain suffered must also be taken into account. The jury returned after an hour to award £2500’ general damages £260 for expenses already incurred, and £294 for probable future expenses. By direction of his Honor, the third item was incorporated with the first and judgment was given for £2794 general and £260 special damages, making a total of £3054 and costs to the plaintiff. Mr West was granted seven days in which to apply for a new trial, on the ground that the damages were excessive.