CLAIM SUCCEEDS.

Auckland Star, Volume LXX, Issue 37, 14 February 1939, Page 10

CLAIM SUCCEEDS.

AWARD BY JURY. DAMAGES TOTAL £963. YOUTH'S XJBO INJURY. (From Our Correspondent.) HAMILTON, Monday. Special damages assessed at £163 14/6, and general damages amounting to £800 were awarded Thomas Alexander Clark Taylor, aged 18, of Hamilton, by a jury in the Supreme Court at Hamilton, to-day, Mr. Justice Smith presided.

Taylor claimed £179 19/6 special damages and . £850 general damages from Auto Replacements,- Limited, the claim arising out of an accident at the defendant company's yard at Frankton on January 18, 1038, as a result of which" plaintiff suffered an injury to his knee necessitating the Use of a frame to support his leg.

Messrs. W. J. King and F. D. Robertshaw appeared for plaintiff, and defendant was represented by Messrs. J. Hore and S. D. E. Weir. Case for Defence. Opening the case for the defence, Mr. Weir said that neither Mervyn Waugh, who was driving the wrecking truck at the time of the accident, nor plaintiff was acting within the scope of his employment by moving the old car which they were dismantling, and by moving it they were doing nothing that was necessary to carry out their instructions. Suggesting that Waugh's foot had slipped from the clutch and caused the accident, Mr. Weir contended that this was not an act of negligence. The defence claimed that plaintiff himself and that he could have avoided the accident by doing one of two things. Firstly, he could have stayed in the car that was being towed instead of going between it and the wrecking truck, pr he could have warned Waugh of his intention to descend. James Alfred Thomas, managingdirector of the defendant company, stated that the part of the yard where the accident occurred was not usually used for wrecking cars, but was more in the nature of a store yard. Witness had told plaintiff and Waugh to dismantle the car and considered there was sufficient room for them to work at it withput mpving it. He would not have permitted them to use the wrecker. Medical Evidence. After the accident Waugh had told him his foot had slipped off the clutch of the wrecker, causing it to jerk, for- ■■ ward.

Dr. E. C. Brewis stated he had examined plaintiff'p injury in November and again on February 8. He found, on the second occasion, a distinct improvement, Plaintiff had walked without the pupport of the frame on February 8. Witr ness was of the opinion that plaintiff's condition would improve, possibly up to the poipt pf being able to discard the mechanical support, • After a lengthy retirement, the jury* ip awarding damages, fpupd that plaintiff and Wapgh werp acting wjthip the scope of their employment at the time of thp accident, and that, taking into account tbe actions of the plaintiff, as well as those of Waugb, plaintiff's injury was caused bj the negligence of Waugb.