DRIVER STRUCK.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVII, Issue 183, 4 August 1936, Page 8

DRIVER STRUCK.

AUGHTING ON ROAD.

ACTION AGAINST MOTORIST.

CLAIM FOR £6QB DAMAGES

The driver of a motor truck, who was struck by a motor car opposite the Ferry Buildings when alighting- from his vehicle' on the driver's side on

December 1 last year, brought an action for £UOS damages in the Supreme Court yesterday before Mr. Justice Fail and a jury. The plaintiff was Thomas Clune (Mr. North and Mr. Mitchell), milkman, of Henderson, and the defendant Miss Edith E. Ford (Mr. West), of Auckland. The plaintiff contended that he had one foot on the road and one on the running-board, and was struck by the windshield and side of the car, which came from the same direction as he had done. He suffered an injury to his arm. Alleging that the accident was due to Miss Ford's negligent driving, he claimed £500 general damages and £108 special damages. Of the latter amount £03 12/ was for loss of earnings.

Plaintiff, in evidence, said he had one foot on the running-board and one on the ground when he felt a smash on his side. He had previously looked to see if there was any traffic coming from the front or behind, but there was none.

Cross-examined, witness said he did not see why there should be any danger in getting out of a' car oil the driver's side. It would bo dangerous if the person did not look back to'see if there was any traffic. He now had difficulty in lifting his injured arm above shoulder height. Dr. W. E. Me Caw said that a muscle in plaintiff's left arm had been cut through. Witness thought plaintiff exaggerated in his mind the amount of pain in the arm. He had had a very serious mental upset, and did not appear now to be a normal individual. Dr. T. G. Short thought Clune was suffering from hysteria and mental obsession, and emotional instability resulting from the accident. Evidence Volunteered. George Brennall, former caretaker of the Safe Deposit Buildings, stated that last evening he had heard some people talking about the accident, and he had come forward to give evidence, as he iiad seen it. He did not know the plaintiff. Witness described how the plaintiff was standing with one leg on the road and the other on the running board, apparently talking. Witness did not see a car at that time. Shortly afterwards a car just came from somewhere and struck the plaintiff. The car seemed to be right alongside the truck.

Evidence was given for the defence by Dr. T. W. J. Johnson, who considere# that there was now nothing wrong with plaintiff's arm. Witness' opinion was th"t there was now no signs of physical neurasthenia, but that the plaintiff was entirely vindictive.

Mr. K. /McKenzie, surgeon, agreed with the previous witness as to plaintiff's physical condition. From his investigation of plaintiff's record witness wondered at the length of the treatment. It was not credible that physically the wound could occasion the pain and disability of which the plaintiff complained. Cross-examined, witness said that if the plaintiff felt pain around.tlie wound it was mental. " . - "Soon after I passed the bottom" of Queen Street I saw the-'stationary truck against the kerb. It did not look as if* it had anybody in it," said the defendant in evidence. "Ifcame uj) to the" truck well clear. Just as the front of my car was about opposite the cab of the truck a man stepped out and crashed into my side windshield. There was no indication that anybody was getting out of the truck." (Proceeding.)