STUDENT INJURED IN COLLISION

Press, Volume LXXVI, Issue 23087, 1 August 1940, Page 10

STUDENT INJURED IN COLLISION

V], * Jury Awards £l5O MEDICAL EVIDENCE IN ' SUPREME COURT General damages of £l5O were awarded by a jury in ibe Supreme Court yesterday to Janies John Wal-' lace, a student at Canterbury Agri-, cultural College, who claimed £6OO from Gough, Gough, and Hamer, Ltd,,, for injuries suffered in a collision between a motor-car and a truck driven by an employee of the company. The company admitted liability for hospital and doctors’ expenses totalling £7O ifc 6cL Mr R. A. Young appeared for fla plaintiff, and Mr W. F. Tracy for tfe" defendant company. Mr Justice Norths' croft presided. Mr Young said that Wallace yng seeking compensation for injuries, sufc fered when a small car in which & was a passenger came into collision with the company's truck near the college at Lincoln; on June 19, 1934 The company admitted that its driver was responsible for the accident, and the jury had only to determine the amount of damages the plaintiff was entitled to for the pain and suffering caused him, his loss of enjoyment cj life while in hospital and afterwards,, and his loss of earnings. The case would probably resolve itself into i conflict of medical evidence on the severity of the plaintiff’s injuries.. Wallace entered the college in 19JJ for a two years’ course in agriculture, said Mr Young. Till the accident fie had taken a full part in all outside activities at the college. After the accident he was in the Christchurch Public Hospital for eight weeks. After convalescence, the plaintiff would say, he was unable to settle down to his studies, and suffered from severe headacheS. Since the accident he had dona no heavy work at the college. He had to remain at college another year, con. turning his studies. 1 Professor E. R. Hudson, director tf the college, called by Mr Young, said that before the accident Wallace s work had been good both in theory and practice. There was a definite change after the accident, when the plaintiff | complained of inability to concentrate, fi If Wallace had been fit for heavy | work, witness would have been, B pared to recommend him for a farm B manager’s position. ~ „ , , | Dr. D. McK. Dickson said that when H he saw the plaintiff in the Public Hos- | pital he concluded that his injuries E were concussion and a springing apart | of the pelvic bones in front- He had’ improved slowly and steadily. For some- time he was worried by headaches, pain across the pelvis, and pam ; in the right hip and back. Witness ? would say that about a month ago ; the plaintiff had fully recovered. ; Nature of Injuries Mr Tracy said he would call only medical evidence. The special damages l would be paid, but the. defendant objected to paying £6OO m addition, which was far too much. His evidence would indicate that the plain- } tiff had suffered only the results or J “a very severe jar.’’ - I Dr W. M. Cotter, called by Mr Tracy . 1 said Wallace was in his cate in tfif I Public Hospital. The iheory that the I pelvis was ‘‘sprung was largely wit- I ness's theory. It would account foi l thl patient’s slow recovery. There was I no obvious sign of injury, and an X- I ray of the pelvis showed no abnonn 31 Mr Young, witness said ,he did not think the injuries as diagnosed by him would cause great pain and suf *D? g L. A. Bennett said that when he saw the plaintiff in October last year he complained chiefly of what H called nervousness, and of headachy Tests showed that he was m a state of what had been called neurasthenia, Witness thought there was good reasra for the nervousness, on account, oi the accident. After a Mer examination, witness began to doubt the ho*pital diagnosis, forming the a Item tive theory that a blow on the hi£ region had bruised the inside of the pelvic joint, which would cause a good & of pain, in March th.a Jre» ’rtness was surprised to find that jne plaintiff was not completely weUJT? all intents and purposes all the pnm cal effects had disappeared monlM ago. But because the plaintiff worrying type, the pain had beenmpm severe had lasted longer than it might- have in another person. = . Addressing the jury, Mr Tracy that no precise estimate could be givffl, of the amount to which the plaintm was entitled. Certainly he had «afered considerable pain. But he was not entitled to anything for lossjt earning power, as he was now Pjo* ceeding with higher studies at te college, which would in the long run be to his advantage more than if W had proceeded to employment as a farm manager. ~ . H Mr Young, in a brief address, saw there was no doubt that the plamufi had been gravely injured. Dr. Cotter< a witness for the defence, had agreeo i with Dr. Dickson, who had been called for the plaintiff. Dr. Bennett had not J seen the patient till three months after the accident. The jury could well regard as ground for damages the difficulties, loss of enjoyment, and worries, which had continued for a year of the plaintiff’s life. The amount claimed was not unreasonable. . Summing up, his Honour directed tne jury to dismiss from their minds the thought of the farm manager’s job, which was too remote and speculative to be a ground for damages. He could see no evidence at all of any economic loss to the plaintiff through the accident. The doctors had had an interesting medical argument on the nature i of the injuries, but they all agreed that, whatever the injury was, it fiaa now been cleared up. They also ag* 6 ®} that the pain and suffering caused to the plaintiff had been increased by hu disposition to neurasthenia which was not, however, to be considered derogatory to the plaintiff.