BROKEN FINGER.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIX, Issue 169, 20 July 1938, Page 15

BROKEN FINGER.

CLAIM BY WOMAN.

COURT AWARDS £31 13/8. TWO CITY FIRMS SITED.

Two claims, one for £119 5/8 against Barker and Pollock, Ltd., drapers, of Karangahape Road, and the other for £30 against Bates' Pharmacies, Ltd., chemists, Karangahape Road, were brought in the Magistrate's Court by Mrs. Lilian Bruce, married woman, of St. Andrew's Road, Epsom. Plaintiff alleged that while in the shop of the first defendants on the evening of Friday, March 4 last, an iron stand fell on her right little finger and fractured it. Against the second defendants she alleged negligent advice and treatment of the broken finger. *

Mr. A. K. Turner appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. S. Cleal for the defendants, the case being heard before Mr. W. H. Freeman, S.M.

It was agreed -that both claims should be heard together. Plaintiff said that while inspecting a line of silk which had been advertised by Barker and Pollock, and which was displayed on a table in the shop, an iron stand fell, she l>elieved from a shelf above, on to her finger. She left the shop and went to Bates' Pharmacies and asked the shopman if the finger had been broken. He examined it and told her it had not, and, after bandaging it and giving her a bottle of lotion, told her the finger would be all right in a few days. Some days later she visited the defendant chemists' shop, but did not see the attendant who had given her the lotion and bandage. She saw two other men, both of whom denied ever seeing her before, but one finally said that she must have been attended to by a man who had been employed to assist in the shop on Friday, March 4.

Advised to Consult Doctor. Witness said she was advised to see a doctor, and it was found then that the finger had been fractured. Her husband was unemployed and she did dressmaking. Because of the accident she had had to cancel a number of dressmaking jobs she had engaged to do.

Questioned by Mr. Cleal, the plaintiff said she did not actually see the iron stand fall from a shelf above the table, but presumed it had done so. She was certain it had not been on the table and knocked over by another woman customer who was also handling the materials on the table.

Dr. J. Dreardon said he had examined plaintiff's finger. He could not say that because of her delay in seeking medical advice the ultimate effect would be substantially different.

Mr. Cleal submitted that no evidence of negligence had been proved against the defendants Barker and Pollock. There was no proof that the stand had fallen from a shelf on to the plaintiff's finger. Counsel also submitted that no evidence of negligence had been 6hown against the chemist.

Mr. Turner agreed that there was little or no evidence against the chemist, who had been cited as a defendant because of insurance purposes only. He did not suggest that the injury had been affected as a result of the delay in being treated by a doctor.

Defendant's Evidence. David Barker, a partner in the defendant firm, said at no time had any iron stand as described by the plaintiff been placed on the shelf. He was in the chop all the evening of March 4, but heard nothing of any accident to Mrs. Bruce till the following day, when her husband called. On the Friday of the following week Mrs. Bruce called with another woman, and Mrs. Bruce said another customer had knocked an' iron stand which was on the table over on to plaintiff's hand. Witness advised her to see a doctor.

Noel Ottg, salesman, who had served at the defendant's shop, said plaintiff had made no complaint to him.

Dr. J. Dreadon said he had examined be a slight permanent deformity of the injured finger, but any present awkwardness would pass after a short period, and plaintiff would be able to use the finger quite well. x

His Worship said that the defence had failed to show the accident was due to any negligence other than that of the defendant company. Plaintiff would be awarded £31 13/8 damages and costs £7 14/ against Barker and Pollock, but no negligence had been shown against the defendant chemists, and in that action a verdict would be for the defendants, with costs £5 9/,