SUPREME COURT

Press, Volume LXXXI, Issue 24572, 22 May 1945, Page 3

SUPREME COURT

i MONDAY (Before jils Honour Mr Justice North* croft, ■ CLAIM FOR DAMAGES

A claim for £550 general damages and £95 Ss special damages was made by Kinnear David Sage, an infant, through his father, Oliver Ormond Sage, •an electrician, against Stanhope, Ernest Long and Harold Percival Ashton, cartage contractors, in respect of an accident at Charteris Bay on.December 4, 1943. Plaintiff, when a passenger in a car driven by his father, was injured, and it was laimed that the injuries were caused through the negligent driving of defendants* truck, driven by Joseph William Hammond, defendants' employee. It was alleged that defendant had driven at an excessive speed, that he had failed to keep a proper look-out, and that he had not kept as near as possible to the correct side of the road.

Mr A. W. Brown appeared for plaintiff and Mr C. S. Thomas, with him Mr T. A. Gresson, represented the defendants. Mr Brown, In explaining the claim to the jury, said plaintiff, a boy of 13 years, was injured when a car driven by the lather was struck by defendants’ truck at Charteris Bay. Hammond was driving towards Christchurch. , Witnesses would say that the lorry was travelling at an excessive speed, and though the lorry only brushed the car, it damaged a door and broke the glass, which cut through a muscular nerve in the boy’s arm. This would result in a permanent disability The claim was based on the excessive speed at which Hammond had driven round the corner. ♦

Mr Gresson, for the defendants, said the jury would in due course be given the opportunity to inspect the scene of the accident. The evidence for the defence would be in direct conflict to that offered by the plaintiff. After the jury had inspected the scene of the accident, it would And that the stiff rock on the side of the road limited the room allowed for a car to keep to the left. The probabilities were that the jury would be guided by what the driver had to tell. After one year and a half the complainant Sage had possibly reconstructed the scene of the accident in support of his own boy’s claim The complainant’s story was that his own driving was perfect, and that all the fault was on Hammond’s side. The evidence would show that Hammond was on his correct side, and that Sage was hot on fUo rtfirrort cIHp Mr Brown Calledseven witnesses for the plaintiff and when the Court adjourned at 4.15 p.m., two witnesses had been heard for the defence.

In adjourning the claim until to-day. ids Honour said the jury would be called together at 9 a.m. to-day, and would visit the scene of the accident.