NEARLY £3000.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIX, Issue 143, 20 June 1938, Page 8

NEARLY £3000.

Accident claim. INJURY TO HOUSEWIFE. LOSS OF SPORT PLEASURE. Arising out of a minor car accident at the intersection of St. Stephen's Avenue and Parnell Road on the evening of December 12, 1936, a case eanie before Mr. Justice Reed and a jury j n the Supreme Court to-day in which Reginald William Fitt and Margarett Blanche Fitt (Mr. Goldstine) claimed from Ernest Munro, clerk, of Epsom (Mi - . V. R. Meredith), £2OOO genera] damages and £249 special damages, with a further claim by Mr. Fitt for £jj) in respect to permanent domestic assist, anco and medical assistance and massage for his wife. Injury and Claim. In outlining his case, Mr. Goldsim said that while crossing Parnell Road ou a Saturday evening Mrs. Fitt was knocked down by a motor car driven hr defendant, and suffered, among other injuries, a broken right leg below the knee. She had had to have prolong hospital treatment, including six operations, and this had delayed the malcitm of the claim, pending some certain knowledge of the full extent of her permanent incapacity.

As a result of the accident Mrs. Fitt’a right leg was permanently stiff at the knee, and the ankle and foot joints were also stiffened. The leg was shortened an inch and a half, and on her chin she carried a permanent sear. She had been a keen tennis player, was fond of dancing, and a proficient swimmer, and did her own housework.

By the accident she had become a cripple to an extent ' which almost entirely precluded enjoying the sports mentioned, and which prevented her doing such housework as entailed kneeling. The expenses of £249 came out of Mr. Fitt’s pocket, as also would those caused by Iler continued disability, and for further massage treatment. The Onus of Negligence.

Describing the accident, Mr. Goldstine said evidence would be brought to show that, having seen the lights of a car approaching ou her right, Mrs. Fitt started to cross Parnell Road at a walking pace in a straight line. Arriving at the centre of the road between the two sets of tram lines, she looked to the left and saw a taxi just stopping a little distance off. Resuming it had stopped to let her cross, she took a step when she was struck and knocked down. The driver of the taxi was an eyewitness who could say Mrs, Fitt was struck by the car coming from Mrs. ■Fitt’s right and driven by. defendant. That car, several witnesses would say, did not pull up until it had travelled 17G feet after having struck Mrs. Fitt. It was claimed that the accident was due to the negligence of defendant. Hospital Treatment.

Mrs. Fitt gave evidence on the lines stated by counsel. She said she was between the two sets of tram lines when she was struck, but she did not know what struck her. She heard no warning sounded. Witness gave particulars of her hospital treatment. She added that she had two children, aged 13 years and nine years, and had previously done her own housework, but she could not now do it without, assistance.

In cross-examination by Mr. Meredith, defendant said she had been two years in Auckland and in that time had had approximately a.-couple of dozen games of tennis. Also during that, time she and her family had lived with her mother-in-law as they could not get a house. The case is proceeding.