NONSUIT ENTERED

Dominion, Volume 27, Issue 280, 23 August 1934, Page 13

NONSUIT ENTERED

Damages Against Crown Claimed FALL FROM TRAIN A non-suit with- costs according to scale was entered by his Honour Mt. Justice Ostler in the Supreme Court, Wellington, yesterday in a case in which Helen Henrietta Priestley, widow, by petition of right, claimed £lOOO damage? against the Crown for injuries received when alighting from a train. - Mr. P. J. O'Regan appeared for suppliant and Mr. C. H. Taylor for the Crown, In her petition suppliant said tnat on September 2. 1933. she was a passenger bv railway from Auckland to National'Park; and that she arranged with the guard on duty, John Shann, that be would assist her to alight from the train on arrival nt National Park. When the train arrived at National Park the guard did not come to her assistance as arranged, and she determined to alight from the train unassisted. While in the act of alighting she fell to the ground, suffering bodily injuries from the effect of which she was still suffering. As a result of the injuries she was totally disabled for three months, and was advised that she would never recover. It was contended that the accident was due to negligence on the part of the guard in tliat he failed to keep his appointment to assist her Negligence Denied. Tbe Crown admitted that suppliant arranged with the guard that he should assist her to alight from the train at National Park. "When the train arrived at National Park station the guard, it was stated, went to the carriage for the purpose, but she had already alighted. It was contended that if suppliant was injured in alighting the injury was due to no negligence on the part Of the guard, but to suppliant alighting, from the train in a careless and negligent maimer. It was further contended that if suppliant did suffer injury, and if the guard was negligent, there was contributory negligence on her part. After evidence had been taken Mr. Tavlor applied for a nonsuit. His Honour said that it was a very unfortunate accident, and he was sorry for plaintiff. It seemed to him to be Ills duty to enter a nonsuit. The onus lay on ‘plaintiff to prove some neglituce on tbe part of the railways or its officers. It was no part of plaintiff’s contract that the Department would undertake that she would alight at her destination without falling. It was no part of the duty of a guard to assist passengers to alight, although guards often did. When assistance was given ii was given as a matter ot courtesy. There was no evidence that tbe.guard legligontly forgot his promise. On plaintiff's own admission she was on the platform us soon as the train stopped. ... The guard probably had other duties to perform. If plaintiff had had patience, for all that was known, the guard might have redeemed hlscproniise.