SUPREME COURT.

Press, Volume LII, Issue 9124, 7 June 1895, Page 6

SUPREME COURT.

CIVIL SITTINGS. Thursday, Ju_"e 6. (Before bis Honour Mr Justice Dennis ton and a special jury of twelve.) His Honour took his seat at 11 a.m. TYNE V BLACK, BEATTIE AXD CO. This was a claim for £3000. The statement of claim set out that the plaintiffwere Henry Pyne, plumber, of Christchurch, and Margaret Home Pyne, his wife, who before and at the time of the alleged injury performed the household duties for himself and his family, and assisted him in his business. The defendants Avere drapers, and carried on business in Christchurch. Ou the 17th October, 1894. Margaret Home Pyne, theplaiutiff, Avas iv defendants' shop purchasing goods. Whilst there, and sitting at a counter for the purpose of making such purchase, the defendants or their servants negligeut'y, and contrary to the duty of the defendants towards tbe plaintiff, M. H. Pyne, permitted a roll of cocoanut matting to fall through a hole or well on the first fl jor of the said shop and upon the plaintiff, M. H. Pyna, whereby she sustained injury to the spinal cord, and complete paralysis below the seat of injury. By reason of the premises M. H. Pyne suffered, is suffering, and will suffer great pain, and was and is for life crippled and incapacitated from attending to her household or any other duties; the plaintiff, Henry Pyne, had lost ana avill lose the comfort, society, assistance and services of his wife, and had incurred and would incur, so long as his wife should live, expense for nursing and medical attendance and otherwise. The plaintiffs prayed for judgment for the sum oi £3000. The defendants, in their statement, admitted the allegations contained in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3; they admitted the allegations in paragraph 4, except as to the charge of negligence and breach of duty and as to tbe "extent of the injuries sustained by the plaintiff, M. H. Pyne, which they denied. The roll of matting fell through the well of the floor of the defendants' shop by accident and without any neglect or breach of duty on the part of defendants or their servants. They denied that the plaintiff, Margaret Home Pyne, was crippled for life, or that the plaintiff, Henry Pyne would incur expense for nursing, medical attendance, and otherwise, for so long as the said Margaret Home Pyne should live. Mr KippeDberger, with him Mr Flesher, appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr Stringer, with him Mr Caygill, lor the defendant Company. Mr Kippeuberger opened the case for the plaintiff, and called evidence. Dr. Murdoch deposed to attending to Mrs Pyne who, on the day in question about 11 a.m., was lying down in Mr Beattie's office. He found she was paralysed from the waist down, and she was taken on a stretcher to' her mother's in Lower High street. There she was examined by witness and Drs. Ovenden and Meares. The plaintiff Avas in great pain, and was paralysed from the lower strata of vertebrae downwards. To relieve the pain he injected morphia. He had attended her ever since. He found various organs of the body disorganised, and described the most serious complication from which she waa suffering, inflammation of the spinal cord. He also described the patient's varying conditions during her illness and the treatment she had to receive. She also had symptoms of inflammation of the lining of the brain which affected her eyesight. She had had careful nursing and attention, which she would require as long as she lived. From what Mr Beattie told him he understood that the piece of matting in falling struck the counter by which Mrs Pyne was sitting; then it Btruck the chair on which Mrs Pyne was sitting, and knocked the chair and her over. In January she was removed to her husband's residence. From her condition it was advisable thab she should be regularly attended by a medical man. Mr Stringer said he did not question Dr. Murdoch's evidence. Dr. G. E. Deamer, as Zocuhi ienens for Dr. Murdoch in February and March, attended Mrs Pyne, and agreed with the evidence given by Dr. Murdoch. Witness knew Mrs Pyne about twelve months ago. She was a healthy woman. Dr. Ovenden deposed to having been in consultation with Dr. Murdoch, whose evidence he corroborated. Mrs Pyne was bedridden. He knew her about twenty yejlrs ago. She was a healthy young woman. Henry Pyne, plaintiff, deposed that he and Margaret Home Pyne had been married eleven years. They had* two children, eight years and three years. His wife attended to the household duties, and also assisted him in the shop prior to her accident. He. had a boy of eighteen by his first wife. His extra expenses since the accident were about £172. Prior to the accident his y\ ife was always well. Cross-examined —His wife was thirty-two years of age. He understood that Mr Beattie had provided his wife with nurse and medical attendance. Mr Beattie paid the nurse up to the 16th January, and the doctor's bill up to March. Witness had received bills from Drs. Prins and Ovenden. In addition to that Mr Beattie did not provide certain furniture, &c. Mr Beattie provided an air bed. Witness did go to Mr A. J. White's, aud had received a bill. He went on his own account; he was not told to go there by Mr Beattie. He put the two young children out at 83 each a week. One was away thirteen weeks, and the other had been away ever since. He had also to provide drugs and stimulants for his wife. The amounts could be found by the accounts. He lost wages for eighty-two days at 9s a day ; paid wages and board of nurße twenty weeks at £2 a week ; wages and board of servant eight weeks, 16s a Aveek ; A. J. White's account, £20 19s 6d, and other accounts. The knives, forks and spoons and duchesse chest would not have been required but for the nurses. He had the nurse Mr Beattie employed to nurse his wife at her mother's. He did not know that Mr Beattie had paid her 22s 6d a week.

John Faulkner, a wire worker, deposed thab under instrucbions from Mr Beattie he put Btrong wire netting over the wells in defendant.' shop. The wire he had put Avould prevent an article of several hundredweight falling through. Cross-examined—He had never put wire netting over other wells nor had he seen it done. He had no applications from other firms nor had he made application to them. The netting would interfere with the light. There would be no necessity for it if the goods were packed in a decent way. E. Dobson, C.E., deposed that he visited defendants' shop on Tuesday aud Mr Beattie pointed out how the rolls stood on the day of the accident. Witness made a plan of the position, Avhich he explained to the jury. Accepting Mr Beattie's statement as to the position of the roiis the accident must have been the result of negligence.

J. C. Prudhoe, District Manager of the Government Life Insurance, was called to give evidence on the question of annuities. Mr Stringer objected to the evidence being taken.

His Honour ruled that the evidence Mr Kippenberger wished to obtain would not be relevant to tbe case. Mr Caygill opened the case for the defendants. On the application of Mr Kippenberger, the employees of defendants who were witnesses were ordered out of Court. R. Beattie, one of the defendants, deposed that he had been twelve years in the present premises, which were built for the firm! The building was of three 6toreys, and was provided by air wells common to such establishments, such wells being protected by a roiling. It was very common to pile goods, as matting, <_■_~ on top of each other. It would be impracticable to do otherwise with them. [Witness produced a pian ot the interior of the building, showing where the matting stood.J Tbe rolls had been in their then position for about ten days, having been moved there to admit of a door being opeued to take in goods. This practice had been in operation for about two years. In twelve months they had opened up about 5000 cases and bales on the floor from which the matting fell. Thompson, Smith, Polteney, assistants, were working on the floor. Thompson, the senior, had been in the employ eight or nine years. He Avas trustworthy and careful. The other two were also reliable, careful men. After the accident witness had Mrs Pyne taken to her mother's house, where he saw Mr Pyne and told him they would do all they could for her and srovide her with a

doctor. Witness provided her with doctor, nurse, tc, and paid I 7" 01. When the Avrit was issued v .usis ceased any payments. Whatever _>-- Murdoch suggested witness ordered to be got for Mrs Pyne. Witness had never known wells to be netted before. The experiment was not very satisfactory, as it obstructed the light to an extent and caused the accumulation of dust

Cros-exa nined—What he did for Mrs Pyne he aid voluntarily. Ia a room where the young girls took their lunch a very small well had been covered with wire netting. It was done bec&u.e about four years ago one of the girls dropped a pair of scissors doAvn the well. There were no goods near i:. No cases were being brought in ou the 17th October. Oa the day before several were brought in, and unpacked on the 17th. Since the accident the matting had been stood on the top of one another.

Re-examined—Witness was on the door about ten minutes before the accidenc, and everything then appeared carefully stowed away. W. P. Ciarkson, architect, deposed to drawing the plan produced by Mr Beattie. The balustrade round tne well was of the usual height. In England, on the Continent, in South Africa aud Australia, he had seen wells, and none were covered with wire. In the present case the shop would lose about an eleventh of the light, which could not be got except by means of the well.

Cross-examined —He had never heard of an accident through anything falling through these wells. People in the establishment were usually very careW in handling goods on account of the risk^r Jas. Thompson, assistant at Messrs Black, Beattie and Co., deposed that the matting before the accident was seb against the wall. He described the operation of unpacking a case of goods near Avhere the matting was standing. After the case was emptied and pub upright he saw the roil of matting fall, strike the bannister and go down the well. An assistant sang out to those Avho were below. Witness saw the uuder roll of matting move buck co its place, having evidently tilted when , the top piece fell. The unpacking-was dove "steadily, and there was no skylarking by the assistants. He did not see the rolls struck by anything or anyone before the top one fell. William Smith gave corroborative evidence.

John tfoles, manager for Mr A. J. Whibe, deposed bhat he would nob regard as a dangerous posibion thab in which the matting was stacked. Geo. McCormick, of the D.1.C., and G. Glover, of Sargood, Son and Ewen, also gave evidence, and the case for the defence closed.

Mr Stringer in addressing the jury submitted that the building ia which the accident occurred was built according to the best recognised and mo.t approA'ed system. Then the question was whether the accident was one wnich might have occurred notwithstanding the exercise of reasonable care and prudence. He held that such care aod prudence had been exercised, and thab the accident Avas one of bhose risks which every one waa liable to. If the jury considered otherwise ib would be imposing on shopkeepers a serious liability, to which they 'ought not to be subjected. Upon the whole consideration of the case the jury Avould have no difficulty iv coming to the conclusion that, however lamentable the accident was—and no one regretted it more than the defendant—it arose from one of those risks which the exigencies of modern society imposed on everyone. Should the jury decide to give damages, he held that the case was nob one for punitive damages, because if there were negigeuce at all it was of the very slightest. However, when the case was considered from beginning to end the conclusion would, no doubt, be that there was no liability at all on the part of the defendant.

Mr Kippenberger submitted that the negligence arose when the cases were being unpacked, and that the inference to be drawn from the fact was thab the defendants were liable. Because people ordinarily stacked matting, &c, as Avas done in bhis case, his learned friend wished ib to be inferred that if anyone on entering the shop had a bale fall on him, it was a purely unavoidable accident againab which there was no remedy. The poinb to be decided was whether the precautions necessary -under the circumstances had been taken. His (Mr Kippenberger'si contention was that they were not. Then, as to damages ; no amount Avould compensate Mrs Pyne for the blasting of her life, but such damages could be given as would provide her with what she required in her injured condition. Ib rested with the jury what damages should be awarded.

His Honour, in the course of his summing up, said that if the accident was one which could have been guarded against then the defendants should have guarded against it, and if these wells aud the stacking of goods were necessary, then ib was necessary thab extra care should be exercised. The care should be proportionate to the risk. Then came the question was the falling over of the matting unavoidable, ■ and was the accident one which under the circumstances could not have been anticipated. If that were so then the defendants should receive the benefit of it. If on the other hand the accident was due to the absence of reasonable precautions under the circumstances the defendants were liable. If the jury came to the conclusion that the defendants were liable then only should they deal with the question of damages, the measure of which had nothing t. do with the amount asked. The damages were separately applied for. The husband would be end tied to the actual moneys he had expended and which might fairly be expected to be expended in the future in consequence of the accident, the latter amount being governed by the duration of the life ot the wife, upon which point they had heard the evidence. In such a case when the duration was doubtful the jury would be entitled to decide no doubt in favour of the plaintiff. The husband Avould also be entitled to damages for the loss of his wife's services and society, but in no case of this sort must the damages be sentimental. As to the wife, she would be entitled to reasonable compensation for the injuries sustained, bub the damages must not be punitive, as the accident was evidently unintentional. The jury retired at twenty minutes to 4 p.m., and returned forty minutes later with a verdict for the plaintiffs, awarding £200 damages to Henry Pyne and £400 to hirf wife. Mr Kippenberger moved for judgment, and asked his Honour to certify for a second counsel. His Honour entered up judgment accordingly and the Court rose.