DAMAGES CLAIMED

Dominion, Volume 24, Issue 266, 6 August 1931, Page 5

DAMAGES CLAIMED

Injured by Laundry Van ACCIDENT TO BARONET The action brought by Sir Kenneth Douglas, Bt., against the Victoria Laundry Company to recover damages arising out of an accident last year, was continued in the Supreme Court yesterday. The case was again adjourned after evidence had been given by three witnesses for the defence. The claim is for £2500 general damages and £347/15/11 special damages for injuries received when plaintiff was knocked down by a van driven by William Albert Weldon, an employee of the Victoria Laundry Co., at the corner of Riddiford Street and Constable Street, on July 28. 1930. It is alleged that the accident was due to negligence on the part of the motor driver. The case is being heard by Mr. Justice Blair and a jury. Mr. Cornish and Mr. James appear for plaintiff and Mr. Leicester for defendant.

Following the completion of the case for plaintiff, Mr. Leicester submitted that it was clear that there was contributory negligence on plaintiff’s part, and he asked for a non suit. His Honour reserved his ruling on the point.

Mr. Leicester told the jury that everyone would sympathise with the plaintiff in the substantial injuries he had received in the accident, but he had to submit that Sir Kenneth Douglas ■ was negligent in the way in which he went to cross the road, passing at the back of a tram and proceeding to go diagonally across the road without making sure that it was clear for him to do so. He had admitted seeing the van before passing round tfie back of the tram, yet proceeded with his head down and did not make sure if thevan had gone round into Constable Street or come straight ahead. A cyclist came out of Constable' Street and the van had to swerve to avoid him, and that was why it was over the tram rails. Had the driver not swerved the cyclist would probably have been killed. It was clear that Sir Kenneth could easily have avoided the accident had he taken the reasonable and prudent course of looking down the road as he went behind the tram. The van only travelled _at a reasonable speed over the intersection. Before' the witnesses for the defence were called the jury visited the scene of the accident. Mr. Leicester’s statement was borne out by Montagu F. Rowland, driver of a Newtown car, which was stationary at the stop, and Mrs. Berthold, a passenger in i Lyall Bay car which was standing at the end of Constable Street. She said plaintiff appeared to hurry from behind the Newtown car as if he wanted to catch the tram she was in. The van was not travelling nt abnormal speed. William Albert Weldon, the driver of the van, said a cyclist came out of Constable Street past the tram there, and he had to swerve to avoid him as he crossed the intersection. That threw him over close to the Newtown tram, from behind which the plaintiff suddenly came with his head bent, and they collided. Witness was travelling about 15 miles an hour, and when he put the brakes on the back wheels locked. The hearing was adjourned.