PEDESTRIAN HURT

Dominion, Volume 25, Issue 260, 29 July 1932, Page 5

PEDESTRIAN HURT

Claim for £llOO Damages STATEMENT TO POLICE Ordered to be Produced A collision which occurred at the junction of Rintoul' Street' and Riddiford Street, Newtown, in November last, in which Irene Addis Smith, in charge of the hosiery department in a Cuba Street drapery establishment, received injuries through being struck by a motor-car driven by Caroline Priscilla Purdie, resulted in a claim being made by the former for damages. The case came before Mr. Justice MacGregor and a jury in the Supreme Court yesterday. A statement made to the police was ordered to be produced to the court this morning. Plaintiff was Irene Addis Smith, wife of William Henry Smith, mechanic, Wellington, and the defendants Caroline Priscilla Purdie and her husband, Lawrence James Purdie, of Wellington.

In the claim it was stated that plaintiff had alighted from a Newtownbound car at the junction with Rintoul Street. She was walking across the intersection when the female defendant, who was driving a car in a northerly direction from Riddiford Street, collided with her and knocked her down. It was alleged that defendant was negligent in that she drove the car at too great a speed across the intersection, failed to sound the horn, failed to observe plaintiff, and failed to slow down and steer clear of her. Plaintiff received severe injuries to her left knee and body, and had to receive hospital and medical attention. She had since been unable to follow her occupation, and would be partially disabled as a result of the accident. She claimed £BOO general damages and £322/4/7 special damages. The defence was that plaintiff failed to keep a proper look-out, and failed in the circumstances to use reasonable care.

Plaintiff’s Case. Counsel, in opening the case, said that after dismounting from the Newtown tram plaintiff and her husband looked carefully both' ways before crossing the road to Rintoul Street. There was nothing approaching from the left, and only an Island Bay tram from the right. They had crossed the Newtown rails, and at the same time the Island Bay tram passed in front of them to the foot of Rintoul Street. The motor-car driven by defendant came along Riddiford Street at a fast rate toward the intersection, missed plaintiff’s husband, but the bumper caught Mrs. Smith on the left knee, tossing her in the air. At the time plaintiff commenced to qross the road defendant was not “on the map.” After the collision Mrs. Purdie said she was sorry, but she did not see Mrs. Smith. Describing the injuries, counsel said plaintiff was taken home, but it was found later that the tibia was broken right into the knee joint, and she had to go ’into hospital for- treatment. Mrs. Smith and her husband corroborated counsel’s statement as to how the accident happened. Mrs. Smith said her husband called'“Look!’’ as the motor-car was just on them, and she had no opportunity of avoiding it. She was thrown on to the bonnet of the car and then fell on the ground. The husband estimated the speed of the car at 25 to 30 miles an hour when he saw it approaching. It had no headlights on, and no horn was sounded. He halted and called “Look out!” Had he not hesitated he would also have been struck. The car pulled up in a few feet. He di£ not recall telling the police that his wife crossed the road ahead of him. Painful Treatment. Medical evidence was then called,: and showed that plaintiff suffered excruciating pain in the left leg as a result of the injuries. She reached a state of severe nervous exhaustion. The left leg did not respond to treat- ■

ment at first, and an X-ray photograph revealed a fracture in the lower leg leading into the knee-bone. If was a serious one requiring a long time to repair. The limb required massage and manipulation, and the pain from manipulation was so great than an anaesthetic had to be administered;

Malcolm Ross Wilson, conductor of the Island Bay tram, said the accident happened between 9 and 9.30 p.m. When he saw the motor-car approach It was travelling at a speed of 30 miles an hour. He saw the car strike Mrs. Smith with a hard impact, almost directly under the powerful light at the Intersection. The motor-car had small parking lights on. Counsel for Defendant: Did you tell the constable that the headlights were on?—“No.”

Do you remember saying “the headlights were on; the streets were well lighted’’?—“lt is a long time ago. I know we spoke about lights.” Counsel for plaintiff objected to questions being asked in regard to the statement made to the police unless the statement was produced, as instructions had been given that these statements were not to be produced. His Honour (to Witness): If you made the statement that the headlights were on, how do you reconcile that with your statement? You were more likely to* remember what happened at the time of the accident than now. Witness: It was a long time ago. Counsel: You didn’t see the motorcar until it was about 9ft. away from the woman?—“No. I saw the woman first.” Nonsuit Applied For. Counsel for defendants then applied for a nonsuit on the ground that plain tiff was guilty of negligence in failing to look to the left and seeing the car approaching. It was one of those unfortunate cases where the pedestrian did not look out properly and was hit by the motor-car. Had she looked she must have seen it.

The nonsuit point was reserved. . Counsel proceeded that Mrs. Purdie was not proceeding more than 15 miles an hour, and did not see Mrs. Smith until she was two feet from the car. She did not sound the horn, not deeming it necessary as she saw no one. Two witnesses had estimated the speed of the motor-car at 30 miles over a distance of nine feet, and counsel submitted that a reliable estimate of speed could not be .made in so short a distance. The fact that the car pulled up in six feet after the collision showed Mrs. Purdie was not travelling at excessive speed. He submitted that in any case plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence. A medical witness called for the defence said he had never seen an injury of the nature received by Mrs. Smith recover under twelve months. - Police Statement Called For. Constable E. G. Sutherland was called, and spoke of taking a statement from the tram conductor, Wilson, three days after the accident. Wilson said the headlights were burning on the motor-car. He had not the statement, and could not produce it without authority. He had not disclosed the statement to defendants. Counsel asked his Honour to order the production of the statement, whereupon his Honour directed the constable to fetch the statement from the Central Police Station, adjourning the court for a short time to enable this to be done., On resuming, the constable said he had not obtained the statement as he had been unable to get in touch with the superintendent. His Honour thereupon directed the officer to produce the statement at 10,30 this morning. Laurence James Purdie, battery inspector, said the motor-car belonged to him. It had no parking lights apart from those In the main headlights. The bumper was slightly bent by the collision.

The court adjourned until this morning.