CLAIM FOR DAMAGES

Dominion, Volume 16, Issue 36, 6 November 1922, Page 11

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES

« ALLEGED INSECURITY OF LIFT. A claim for £1670 on account of injuries received by a fall was heard in the Supreme Court on Friday, before Mr. Justice Hosking and a jury of twelve, of whom 'Air. George Henry Schofield was foreman. The parties were John Arthur Connor, carrier (Mr. R. J. O’Regan), the plaintiff, and David Brown Howden, Amy Niblett, and Ada Lily Howden (Messrs. A. Gray, K.C., and E.'K. Kirkcaldie), the defendants. The statement of claim was that plaintiff was a carrier. Defendants were the? owners of Howden’s Buildings. On June 29, 1921, plaintiff, in the course of his business, used the lift, 'Hie signal bell was out of order, and he leant into the Veil of tho lift and called out to the lift attendant. He leapt against the guard rail, which collapsed, precipitating him to the bottom of the lift well. Plaintiff suffered laceration of the right kidney, and was disabled from work of any kin'd, and has been advised that he is permanently incapacitated; Plaintiff at- I tributed his fall to negligence on the part of the defendants, thp guard rail being too short, and therefore inse- ' cure. He claimed £550 for loss of earnings, £l2O medical and hospital expenses, and £lOOO general damages. The defence was a general denial of the plaintiff’s allegations, and alleged that if there had be6n negligence the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence. Mr. O’Regan, for the plaintiff., stated that the lift had since been safeguarded. The only guard at the time of the accident was a piece of wooden batten, insecurely attached. The platform of the lift was narrow, and the light dim. After plaintiff’s fall. Dr. Faulke was called, and 'plaintiff was ordered to the Hospital, where he remained for 16 days, subsequently undergoing extensive further treatment. The whole of yesterday was occupied in clearing the legal ground for the case, and a number of witnesses remain to be beard to-day.