RUN OVER BY A MOTOR

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 214, 4 June 1919, Page 5

RUN OVER BY A MOTOR

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES

PLAINTIFF AWARDED £100

In the Supreme Court yesterday, before His Honour the Chief Justice (Sir fioberl: Stout) and a jury, of twelve, a case involving damages for a motor-car accident came on for hearing. The parties were Johu M'Cullum, an infant, by his guardian and father Matthew MUaren M'Calium, police constable, formerly ot Wellington and now of Uongiiroa, Taumaninui, plaintiff, and Harold Harding Morris, ol Wellington, manufacturing jeweller. Mr. H. F. O'Leary appoared for the plaintiff and Mr. l>. W. Jackson for the defendaut. JTr. Thomas \Valter btnee was foreman of the jury. The statement of claim set out that on May 10, 1918, in Willis Street, at tha junction of Ghuznee Street, the plaintiff was knocked down by a motor-cnr alleged to have been negligently nnd unskilfully driven by the (leleiidant, and as file result the pmintiff John _ M'Cullum was severely injured, his right t'aigh being fractured, and he suffered concussion of tho brniu and his Iwdy had been bruised and injured. As the result of the injuries it was alleged that the mental faculties of the plaintiff had been dulled, and that he would be deaf, and that he had suffered pain and distress lrom the injuries and the. shock following the same. The plaintiff claimed iBOO damages in respect $1 the injuries and JX Ks. in respect of hospital and medical expenses. The defence was a denial of all the statements.

Mr. O'Lenry briefly outlined the case and called evidence. ilattheiv MXaren Jl'C'allum, father of the plaintiff, said that at the time of the accident he was living in Whittaker Street. His eon was five years old last December, and prior to the accident vraa a bright, healthy child. Now he was. somewhat deaf and limped and was dull.

To Mr. Jackson: The defendant called at his place two or three limes and inquired alter the bo,y. He also offered to pay the actual expenses incurred. AlicoiVewstend, widow, living in Ghuznee Street, said she witnessed the accident, which occurred - just after 5 p.m. Sue saw the boy crossing the. street from Dr. Mackenzie's towards St. Peter's Church. She noticed the motor-car coming up Willis Street on the St. Peter's Church side. • Witness took most uotice of the child, nnd saw him run into the motor-car. The car went across the width of Ghuznee Streot and pulled up near Dr. Gilmer's. .There did not appear to he mu'jh traffic in tha street. VVilliam John Birch, civil servant, residing in Devon Street, said he was riding home ou a push-bicycle on the ovening of the accident. He was in the habit of riding a motor-cycle, and therefore had some idea of speed. The. motorcar driven by defendant passed witness übout 35 yards from St. Peter's Church. He thought the car was travelling ftt about io miles per hour. Witness was travelling at about five or six milos per hour. Tho accident occurred about 10 yards beyond where tho motor-car passed the witness. There, was no great amount of traffic in Die streot at the timo; at all events, nothing to obstruct the view of the driver of the motor-car.

• Dr. Faulke, who attended the. lad, gave details as to the injuries received. He oxaminod him on May this year, and there was-an all-round improvement in health. Hβ appeared to bo permanently deaf in the lett ear, he was slow and dull, and his disposition seemed to have altered considerably. Witness knew the lad prior to the accident;' he was then u. lively boy; he was now dull and slow. Eobort Binne, custodian at Lyall Bay, said ho was a constable in May last year, and mado inquiries into the accident to She lad. He interviewed the defendant, who, in answer to a queetion, said he drove his car at about twelve miles per hour across tho intersection. This close tho caao for the plaintiff. l?or. the defence, Mr. Jackson said the case was founded on negligence, and the burden of proof wae on the plaintiff. The defence was that the accident was purely accidental, and if that was eo it was not for the defendant to show that he was not negligent. If the injuries wero purely accidental the defendant was not to blame. His Honour: It may be accidental and yet be duo to negligence. Mr. Jackson, continuing, said it was not suggested for a moment by the plaintiff that the defendant wilfully ran over the child, but tho allegation was that ho was travelling at an excessive speed. The jury would have the evidenco of the defendant and his witnesses, and they would be able to judge whether he was travelling at an excessive speed. The defendant Harold H. Morris said that the maximum speed that could be got out of his car, which was a light one, was about 35 miles per hour. He was travelling home on the evening of the accident. His sister was in the. car with him. He went the distance from Manners Street to Dixon Street at a stow pace, and l'rom Dixon Street to Ghuznee Street increased his speed slightly. Nearing Ghuzncc Stroet he noticed children playing ou the road in front of' St. Peter's Church; ho sounded the horn and slowed down the car, The children scattered and ho went on, when suddenly he snw a child about four or iivo feet in front of the car. He wae so close up that it was impossiblo to avoid collision with tho child. He did not know where the child came from. Ho pulled up the car as soon as possible. At the timo the child was struck the car was travelling about ten or twelve miles per hour, and ho told the policeman that. The car could not be driven 25 miles per hour on the rough road.

To Mr. O'Leary: The accident occurred just as he was crossing the intersection, lie told the constable that ho wae travelling ten miles per hour. He was, con-, victed and fined for exceeding the 6peed limit at an intersection. According to the by-laws eight miles was tho limit.

Miss Morris, sister of the defendant, who wae in the motor-car at the time of the accident, gave corroborative evidence.

Evidence of an unimportant character was given by two others. Tho jury retired at 1 p.m. and returned three hours later, and the for* man announced that they were unable to agree. The majority of the jury, however, awarded tbe plaintiff s XIOO damages, iiud judgment vns given for this .amount with costs according to eca'le.