AFTER TWENTY MONTHS.

Auckland Star, Volume LXII, Issue 166, 16 July 1931, Page 8

AFTER TWENTY MONTHS.

WOMAN'S DAMAGES CLAIM.

UNDUE DELAY ARGUED.

evidence for defendants. %

Medical evidence for the defence was railed in the Supreme Court yesterday, 11 tlie claim of a married woman and her lusband for £1561 damages arising' out )f an Onchunga accident, to sllow that, .vhatev'er compensation was awarded should be the same now, after the lapsj jf 20 months, as if the claim had been wrought two months after the accident. Plaintiffs were David 'Ross, farmer md his wife, Louisa Eoss (Mr. North' ;roft), who sought £1250 and £'31i -espectively. Defendants were John Whitten, blacksmith, of East Tamaki ind Raymond Collins, motor driver, of Dnehunga (Mr. West). The claim wos tieard before Mr. Justice Smith and * special jury. Negligence was admitted, and the'only question for the jujy was the amount af the damages. v:.i». Mrs. Ross, it was stated, had been violently knocked down at the corner of Trafalgar and Inkerman Streets, Onchunga, on ;the evening of November 22,' 1 1929, when a motor car and motor cycle collided at the intersection and a pillion rider on the cycle was thrown • against her as she stood on the footpath nearby ; The claims were made in respect of-her injuries. > -..V. The concluding witnesses for the plaintiffs were Drs. Bull, Cole and Kirkwood. Dr. Bull said that Mrs. Ross would recover after a considerable period.' She was suffering from a functional neurosis, a result of the accident. There was no trace of organic disease. Dre. Cole and Kirkwood considered Mrs. Ross would recover six months after the litigation was concluded. Her recovery had been delayed because;'ife case had remained unsettled. Mr. West contended, for the defence, that the claim should have' been made earlier, and the fact -. that it had been postponed for nearly .tivo years made it clear that there should be some change in the law. It sfi&uld have beon disposed of 18 months ago. Dr. E. H. B. Milsom said he had twice examined the plaintiff. He was Emphatic that she had been using her right kg between the times of the ; two examinations, as proved by the condition of the muscles. He he had seen* her walk when in the hospital, ,and had carefully observed her demeanour when she was examined in May last by Mr. Kenneth Mackenzie, Dr. Macky and himself. Mr. Kenneth Mackenzie, surgeon, said that he had applied tests at . the May examination, and he corroborated Dr. Milfiom's evidence that Mrs. Ross' condition was not as serious as it appeared. Dr. Keith Macky said the plaintiff was able to walk almost normally when she completed a course of three weeks' treatment at the hospital in January, 1930. He thought she would completely recover in three months after the case, "Feeling in Her Mind." • Mr. West, in his address to the jury, said the plaintiff Ross had not been compelled engage the services of: a housekeeper, and he had. no.tevidence, that he had lost the society of his wife. There was a duty on Mrs. Ross to do whatever'waa reasons^' :to minimise • and reduce the extent of.her injuries, but that she had failed ten do. There was a "feeling in her mind" tfrit she. was seriously, injured, but the fact 'that the injury existed only .in her. uujid i made the case unusual. : Both the defendants . were insured, said Mr. West. They had, before, the case, paid £561 into Court, but that was refused by the plaintiffs. It was not now to be regarded as an offer;;: Mr. Northcroft referred to the statements of „ Dr. Milsom, Mr. Mackenzie and Dr. Mackay as based ' upon an "adverse nosis." As they made their examination at the request of the defendants, it was not to be wondered at that Mrs. Ross regarded them with some degree of suspicion, and was not as candid.as they thought she should have been. Over the whole 20 months Mrs. Ross had been virtually bed-ridden, said Mr. Northcroft. Everything possible had been done from the outset to bring about her recovery, but without avail. Mr. Ross had personally attended her. He had been unable to employ other help because he was in a poor financial position. His Honor's Direction. His Honor directed the jury to consider whether there had been any undue delay in bringing the claim. The question whether the woman was suffering from a functional hysterical paralysis was a difficult one. It was clear that there was some loss of feeling in t e right leg. All the doctors agreed that as° soon as the claim was settled there would be a turning point in the tiff's case. The jury had to decide whether there was conscious exaggeration of her condition, and, if so, when l began. The claim of the husband 1° the loss of his wife's services would t> for the same length of time as her claim. The jury retired at 12.25 p.m.