STRUCK BY LADDER.

Auckland Star, Volume LXI, Issue 141, 17 June 1930, Page 19

STRUCK BY LADDER.

CUSTOMER INJURED IN SHOP.

MABRIEB WOMAN'S CLAIM.

JURY AWAEDS £157 DAMAGES,

(By Telegraph.—Own Correspondent.)

HAMILTON, this day.

- Following upon injuries received from a ladder which fell on her, whilst-in defendant's shop, a married woman named Annie Bailey, of Hamilton, sued J. B. llcKenzie, Ltd., for £200 damages before his Honor Mr. Justice Herdman and-a jury at the Hamilton Supreme Court yesterday afternoon. Plaintiff was represented by Mr. J. F. Strang, and defendant company by Mr. N. Johnson.

Mr. C. L. MacDissmal appeared for Cobbe and Co., an employee of whicn firm was undertaking the work of nxing a bund when the occurred. Ccbbe and Co. were therefore joined as third party. In her statement of claim plaintiff set out that on January 25, she entered the Hamilton shop of defendant firm for the purpose of making purchases. Whilst transacting business there a heavyladder fell upon her, injuring her head, shoulder, arm and leg. She also from shock. In consequence her health had been considerably injured, and she still suffered from headaches and sleeplessness.

In stating the case for plaintiff, Mr. Strang said plaintiff had entered McKeffiie's shop for the purpose of making purchases. She was bending down to pick up some envelopes, when a heavy ladder, bearing a young man, slipped and fell upon her, causing her grave injury. A perfectly healthy woman beforehand, a woman who had never experienced any sickness, was now subjected to continuous headaches and was unalle to sleep well "at night. Although McKenzie's had engaged Cobble and Company to do certain work there, they had admitted liability for the slipp"ery nature of the floor on which the ladder was placed, and which it was alleged was the cause of the ladder slipping. Shopkeepers had a right to protect customers doing business on their premises, and plaintiff was not concerned with any adjustments that might be necessary or take place between McKenzie's and a third party. Plaintiff in Evidence. Plaintiff, Annie Bailey, gave evidence along the lines of her counsel's opening and said that while bending down to pick up some envelopes she was struck by a ladder which knocked her down, cutting her forehead and injuring her right ami and shoulder. As a result she was in bed for 14 days and since then had suffered from continuous headaches and sleeplessness. Answering Mr. Johnson, witness said sue was still unable to carry out her household duties as formerly. Dr. T. Milroy said that after the accident he found" plaintiff to be suffering from a fracture of the root of the nose and injuries to her right shoulder and arm. She was now a "neurasthenic and suffered from severe headaches. He ascribed her condition entirely to the accident. It was impossible to say how long this condition would continue. Her power of concentration was impaired and she wag unable to do the work she formerly did. In answer to Mr. MacDiarmid, witness said plaintiff's condition was improving. Her condition, while not definitely attributable to the accident, was probably due to it. The headaches were localised and not general.

His Honor: It sometimes happens, does it not, that neurasthenia passes in these cases, with the conclusion of the litigation? Witness admitted that it did, but did not think the present case was one of that nature. Dr. T. C. Fraser corroborated the last witness' evidence. This concluded the case for plaintiff. Extent of Injury. Mr. IT. Johnson, addressing the jury, said defendants admitted responsibility, and he asked the jury to assess what they considered a reasonable measure of damages. He urged upon them that the £200° claimed was out of all proportion to the injury the woman had received. Dr. Hugh Douglas, called by defendants, said he examined Mrs. Bailey that morning, and had obtained from her a of her physical condition. _ He did not consider she was suffering from any permanent injury. She was suffering from neurasthenia aJid was likely to make a complete recovery. A verdict awarding plaintiff £157 damages was returccd. Judgment was entered accordingly.