£4500 CLAIM.

Auckland Star, Volume LXXI, Issue 50, 28 February 1940, Page 8

£4500 CLAIM.

SEQUEL TO ACCIDENT.

OVER TWO YEARS OLD.

Arising out of a collision between a van and a motor car in Jervoi* Road on August 24. 1937, J. H. Harrison, driver (Mr. Haigh) claimed before Chief Justice Sir Michael Myers and a jury in the Supreme Court to-day againet Trevor Arthur Watts, electrician (Mr. North) for £518 6/0 special and £4000 general damages.

Outlining the plaintiff's case, Mr. Haigh said the evidence would show that Harrison was turning his van in .Tervois Road when the van was struck by a motor car, driven by defendant. It was alleged that at the moment of the collision the car was on its incorrect fide of the road. Evidence would be led to show that a« the result of injuries to hk neck, shoulders and spine plaintiff had had to be treated in hospit«l for long periods, and was now unable to undertake any form of employment. He claimed that his left hand and arm were useless, and that he could walk onlv with the aid of a stick.

Evidence on tl»e lines indicated wan given by plaintiff and others. Plaintiff said that 1h» had no physical trouble at all before the accident.

Before opening the defence. Mr. North moved for a non-suit on the pround that it had not been established that plaintiff's disabilities resulted from the accident.

His Honor overruled the application, but reserved leave for the application io •be made later.

In hie opening M>\ North commented on the fact Jhat the action h«»d been launched over two years "fter the «uvident, without prior notification of the claim. Plaintiff had to prove negligence on defendant's T>nrt as Hie cans* of ?h« accident, and. further, he Tip.* to show that a disease from he snfferci ■was caused bv bumping he received in the accident. Tn re*pect to the accident, evidence would be led thit when defendant's car was close to the van. the driver of the ran *wnn? across the line of following traffic without earning. After evidence had been civen on the lines indicated respecting the accident, the plaintiff's employer said that fir some months prior to the accident fho plaintiff had a sl'jrht limp, and at times he complained of bad circulation in his left arm. The limp was in the left leff. He spot worse after the accident, until be had to lpave work in April last year. To Mr. Haier;t. the witness s<»id that, in respect to the limp. Harrison bid complained of corns on the sole of hs* left foot. Harrison also said that lie lind •had a knock to his left arm before the accident which bad affected its cireula tion. The case is proceeding.