FALL FROM TRAM.

Press, Volume LIX, Issue 17701, 1 March 1923, Page 12

FALL FROM TRAM.

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES. VERDICT FOR TRAMWAY BOARD Margaret- Jane Cairns, a widow, sued the Christchnrch Tramway Board in the Supreme Court yesterday for £5Ol damages for injuries received in a fall from a tram. Plaintiff alleged- negligence on the part of the defendant Board through its servant, the conductor of the tram. The case was heard before his Honour Mr Justice Adams and a jury of twelve. Mr W. J. Sim, with, him Mr W. R. Lascelles, appeared for the plaintiff, and Air J. H. lUpham for the defendant Board. Plaintiff set out in her statement of claim that she boarded a car that left Cathedrai square for lliccarton about seven o'clock on July lli.ii, When it stopped at Jiuniievilie road she. attempted to alight, but it started, and she was thrown to the ground. The mishap, she claimed, was due to the negligence of the motorman .in starting without getting a signal from the conductor ; or ol the conductor, in giving the signal to start while plaintiff was alighting. She stated that she. had been confined to her bed for six weeks; her right arm was considerably bruised and had been useless since, and she had suffered an injury to it that Would be permanent; and she had undergone pain and suffering. On account of- her injuries she was unable to look after herself, and she had to keep her daughter at home to look after her, resulting in a loss to plaintiff of £2 a week for eighteen weeks, a total of £36 up to, the issue of proceedings. She probably would be unable to do her housework for about •mother twelve months, and would need an attendant. Her medical expenses were £ls 4s 6d, and cost of a masseuse £l9 12s. She still received attention.

The original claim was for £2OO damages, but the sum was increased to £sol—£6l special damages, and £440 general damages. The defence was that Mrs Cairns tried to alight when the car was in motion, after it left the Mandeville 'road stop. Dr. F. J. Borrie stated that Mrs Cairns was not quite free of pain. She would never regain the full use of her arm. Her medical expenses so far would be about £2O. Plaintiff stated that she was 74 years of age. She always said to the conductor, "Mandeville road.'' The car stopped there, but did not give her sufficient time to get out: She fell on the road. She said to the conductor: "It's your fault."To Mr TJpham: The car was not moving when she went to get out. Mary Olive Martin, Upper Riccarton, stated that plaintiff got up to go out just as the car stopped. Before plaintiff reached the door, witness realised that the tram had started again. Sarah Ann Watkins, masseuse, stated that plaintiff owed her £ls fbr treatr ment. ■ . Mr Upham, for the defence, stated that plaintiff must have believed that the car was stationary when it was moving. William Harold .Talrins, a director of the Cnnt-erbury Dairy Company, stated that plaintiff walked off the car when it was going at nbont half speed. Henrv Drake, conductor of the car, stated that all was clear when lie started the car at Mandeville road. He was on the back platform when, he realised that plaintiff was going to step off. There wa's nothing he could have done to stop her. The. Par was then going about eio-ht or ten miles an hour. Mr Sim: You knew that witnesses were ordered out of Court during the hearing of the case p Witness: Yes. IVTr S^ra: Then what do you mean by discussing the case with the motorman at Irmch. time? WitnessWe did not discuss his evidence. Mr Sim: Never mind. He was talking about the case? Witness: Yes. Mr_Sim: y ls the motorman coming to give evidence. Wttness: Yes.

Stanley P-spnerell, motorman, stated that he had fifteen years' experience. He remembered the occasion of the accident. After "he got the first.signal to leave, there was another signal triveil tor a stop at the next corner. A little | later a similar signal was given. Then | there was a continuous ring which he | recognised as the emergency signal. He rstopped the car. By the time he got [ out the lady had been picked up. The tram was travelling at about 10 miles an hour when he received the emergency signal. To Mr Sim:' He pulled up immediately within two car lengths. Dorothy Musjrrave, typiste, in the employ.of the Christchurch Tramway Board, stated that she remembered the night of the accident. She was waiting at the corner for an inbound car. She saw a lady get, off the seat on the' up car, and walk on to the platform." She gripned the hand-rail, and then walked off the ear on the side opposite to witness. "Witness walked over to the ladv quick!v. To Mr Sim: She had been in the employ of the Tramway Board for three years. The conductor did not know who she was till she told him. The old lady'said something about the conductor boing at fault. Ellen Graham stated that she remembered the night of the accident. She was in the company of the last witness. The old lady seemed to walk straight off the tram. Samuel Beumelburg stated'"that he was a passenger by the tram dn the night in question. He remembered the car stopping at Mandevilie road. The old lady walked right off He thought the car would be travelling at about twelve miles an hour. George Albert Lishman, enginedriver. gave similar evidence. Mr Upham submitted that the charge of negligence against the Tramway Board had not been proved. The plaintiff was in old lady, and had evidently been confused. Mr Sim contended that the plaintiff's evidon?e was clearly given, and more credible than that of the witnesses for the defendant Board. His Honour stated that the onus in the case was upon the plaintiff to prove negliience on the part of the .servant of the Trnmwav Board. Plaintiff's c.ise practically rested on her own evidence. The jury retired at 4.55 and returned at 5.2-5 p.m. with a verdict for the defendant. Mr Ur>ham moved for judgment, and asked for costs. .Judgment was entered for defendant. with costs according to scale.