SUPREME COURT $40,000 Damages Claim Settled After Plaintiffs Evidence

Press, Volume CVIII, Issue 31628, 14 March 1968, Page 10

SUPREME COURT $40,000 Damages Claim Settled After Plaintiffs Evidence

A plaintiff claiming in the Supreme Court yesterday $40,000 general damages for head injuries suffered in a motor collision was said to have developed an epileptic condition and been left with a distinct slurring in his speech; most of his answers in the witness-box were repeated and clarified, by examining counsel, Mr J. G. Leggat. The plaintiff, Anthony John Corbett, a 21-year-old factory worker (Mr Leggat, with him Mr J. H. F. Macfarlane), said that he was aware that he did not now speak properly and that people had difficulty in understanding him. He described how this had caused his rejection for a commercial traveller’s job in soft furnishings, for which he had been training before being injured in the accident. A settlement of the case, for an undisclosed sum, was reached during the luncheon adjournment, after Mr Corbett had given his evidence. On resumption, Mr Justice Wilson discharged the jury and ordered that moneys paid into court be paid out to the plaintiff’s solicitors, in part satisfaction of the settlement agreed on. Accident Outlined

The accident in which Mr Corbett had been injured, Mr Leggat had earlier said to the jury, had occurred in the early hours of July 25, 1964, at the corner of Sherborne Street and Edgeware Road, St Albans, when a car in which Mr Corbett had been a backseat passenger, was in violent collision with another driven by Maurice Chapman Lintott, defendant in the action. Mr Lintott, also a factory worker, had been driving north on Sherborne Street, and Mr Corbett’s vehicle, which had had a "give way” sign against it, had been driven east on Edgeware Road.

But the mere fact of a “give way” sign in the defendant’s favour did not entitle him to barge through the intersection as he careered up Sherborne Street, Mr Leggat submitted.

Even though Mr Corbett’s vehicle might have been driven through a “give-way” sign, Mr Lintott should, and could, have taken action to avoid it.

The plaintiff alleged that ’ Mr Lintott had been negligent in four respects—approaching] the intersection at excessive' speed, failing to keep a proper ] look-out, failing to see the other vehicle, and failing to stop, or steer clear of it—and’ also joined the driver of his’ own vehicle, Mark William’ Maloney, an accountancy clerk (Mr R. P. Thompson), as a third party in the action. Mr Lintott, represented by Mr R. A. Young, with him Mr P G. S. Penlington, had denied the allegations of negligence. The settlement reached was among all parties. “Collision Violent” Mr Leggat, in his outline of the case, said that the collision between the two vehicles bad been so violent, and damage so extensive, that Mr Maloney's car had had to be cut open to extricate Mr Corbett—who had been three weeks in hospital, deeply unconscious, after suffering severe head injuries, resulting in noticeable scarring of the face. Mr Corbett, in his evidence, 1

said he could remember nothing of the accident, but understood that he had been at a city coffee lounge that evening and had been a passenger in Mr Maloney’s car in order to return to his home in Perth Street, Richmond. Mr Corbett said that as a result of the accident he could no longer ride in the back seat of a car—he felt that “he would be trapped, and have trouble getting out”—nor ride in lifts.

The scarring to his face, on cheek, chin, jaw, and upper forehead, was noticeable and often commented on. A common comment was: “You’ve been fighting with a bottle.’’

Mr Corbett traversed details of his past and present employment, saying that he had trained for a commercial traveller’s position in soft furnishings, but through lejection for such a post—on account of his speech difficulty—had now to do factory work on the assembly of Holland blinds, which he explained as “chain gang-work” and at which he earned $30.40 net a week. Mr Corbett also traversed difficulties he had met since his accident in attempting to

pursue his sports of hockey and miniature-rifle shooting. He said he had played hockey sometimes for the Technical Old Boys senior team, but on attempting to play again after his accident found he had become afraid of being knocked around. He said: “Frankly, I was afraid of the ball,” and with headaches be suffered after the exertion of a game, hockey was “just too much.” Mr Corbett said he now found he could not see through the sights properly and had been forced to give up miniature rifle shooting. The luncheon adjournment was taken at this stage, in which a settlement of the claim was reached without Mr Corbett having undergone any cross-examination.