A COMPENSATION CASE.

Press, Volume LX, Issue 11749, 25 November 1903, Page 10

A COMPENSATION CASE.

A claim for compensation for accident -,vas hfeard yesterday, before Mr Justice DpiiiinTton anel a jury of twelve. The plaintiffs we're Shepherd Cliarles Malcolm, of Christchurch, draper, and his three infant children, and they claimed £750 from the CliriMchurch Tramway Company, as compensation for the pecuniary loss the plaintiff nnd bis children had*sust*ined by the death of 'Mrs Malcolm, in consequence of a tram accident, alleged to bo due to the negligence of defendants' officers. Dr. Findlay, instructed by Mr J. JDougall, appeared for the plaintiffs; and Mr Stringer for the defendant company. The statement of claim set out that on April 11th 'Elisabeth Anne Amelia Malcolm, wife of tho plaintiff, wa* lawfully travelling «* a passenger from Grafton street, in Linwood, to Christchurch, in * tramcar belonging to and used by the defendant company for the conveyance of passengers. The car came into collision with another tar belonging to the defendant company, and in consequence of tho collision the said Elizabeth Malcolm received a severe mental shock and bodily injury, which necessitated premature labour to be induced on May 12th last, and Mrs Malcolm died on the 23rd of May last from septi«emi_, naturally resulting on the operation. It waa also alleged that the collision and injurie* were caused by the negligence of the servants of the defendant company, or some or one of them who were in charge in or driving or conducting tho tramcar which collided with the one in which Mrs -Malcolm was travelling. Tlie statement further set out that Mrs Malcolm, who was a dressmaker by trade, had earned mone-y for the support eif her husband and infant children, who had thus been deprived of such support.. Further, in consequence of his wife's death, Mr -Malcolm had to pay for the care of hi* infant children, and such children had lost the care, education, and training give.ii by their mother. The statement of defence denied that, in consequence of the collision, Mm Malcolm had received a severe or any mental Miock or bodily injuiy which necessitated premature labour to be> induced, or that Mrs Malcolm had died from septicajmia, naturally or otherwise, resulting on any operation. The statement also denied that Mrs Malcolm had, wince her marriage, earned money for the support of her husband and infant children, or that any of them had sustained any pecuniary loss by the death of Mrs Malcolm, or that the death of Mrs Malcolm was directly- or indirectly caused I>y any act, neglect, or default of the defendant company or its servants. Shepherd Cliarles Malcolm, plaintiff, gave evidence that he was mflrriexl in 1892, and shortly ufterwards his wife took a position us head dressmaker in the D.1.C., Durteilin. at, a salary of £3 10s weekly. She continued in that employment for two ye«rs, when she came to C-hri&tchurch, in consequence of his transfer tei that city. At the timo of her death his wife was xhirty-four years of age. She made her own and all the children's clothes, anel did all the housework. At the time of the accident his wife was thrown back on to the floor of the car, and hurt herself on the elbow, hip, and side of the head. From the time of the accident until her death, his wife vomited constantly, and became very weak. His wife, moreover, had to undergo oft operaition, but even after her confinement she became no better, and eventually died. His home thereupon was broken up, and he went to Wellington. He had to pay 12s 6d a week for each of his children, and had to find them in clothes as well. Dr.' Jennings'-stated that ho had attended Mrs ilaleolm from the time of the accident until her death. Wlieu he first raw her she was suffering from shock, and complained of abdominal pains. She continued to vomit for three or four days, whin she began to get better, and to go for short walks. On May Bth he, found her very much worse, and exWhithig symptoms pointing to heart failure. Mrs Malcolm was "worse every time lie saw her. Fever commenced twelve hours after the operation, aii<l death occurred on May 23rd. He considered that the cause i"l death, septicemia, was the direct result of the accident, also that tho septicaemia was induced by scarlatina germs, which might havo been brought in by anybody. Beptkfflmia was morer likely to occur when a person woe in a weak condition, unxl Mrs Malcolm's weakness was due to tlie accident. Dr. Thacker, who had examined Mrs Malcolm after the accident, stated that he . had concluded that the accitlent Mrs Malcolm had met with was the cause of her condition. Dr. Cliarles Mcctott-Amlerson also gave medical evidence. Mr Stringer said that he would not contend that there was no consul relation between the Occident arid tlw cause of death. He-would simply confine himself to the 'question of damages'. Dr. Findlay thereupon closed his case. Mr Stringer stated thnt he did not purpose to call evidence. Dr. Findlay addressed the jury, Mr Stringer replied, and his Honour summed up. The jury, after a twenty-five minute*' retirement, awarded the plaintiffs £650 damages, £200 for Mr Malcolm, and £460 for the children.