UNUSUAL CASE

Dominion, Volume 28, Issue 230, 26 June 1935, Page 14

UNUSUAL CASE

Shock After Midnight Accident £3OO DAMAGES SOUGHT Claiming that she had met with real alarm and serious mental and physical hurt as a result of a car crashing into the fence outside her house at No. 1 Palliser Road, Mary Alexander, a married woman, brought an action against John O’Donovan, a solicitor, in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday. Three hundred pounds for special and general damages was the amount claimed by plaintiff. “It is a point which in my long experience has never been met with by me before,” said Mr. E. D. Mosley, S.M. in reserving his judgment. He had also referred to the unusual nature of the statement of claim when the case commenced. Mr. C. A. L. Treadwell, with him Mr. C. N. Armstrong, appeared for plaintiff, while Mr. H. F. O’Leary appeared for defendant. Plaintiff and her husband were in bed on the ground floor of their house in Palliser Street ou the night of the accident, said Mr. Treadwell. They were asleep, the foot of the bed resting against the window. His case was that the car driven by defendant went off the road, hit the front and side of a garage, went through a fence and finished up against a window. Both sprang from the bed, and Mrs. Alexander, who had a chronic and weak heart, collapsed on the floor and was only able to get up during the last few days. Had it been that she had had a sound heart she might not have suffered any injuries. Medical evidence was given by Dr. F. T. Bowerbank, who described the effects of the shock, which he said must have been severe, on Mrs. Alexander. She had had previous trouble with her heart. The shock had had a grave physical effect, and Mrs. Alexander had been ordered to go to a convalescent home. ,

The incidents affecting Mrs. Alexander on the night of the accident were described by her husband, John Alexander, unemployed. There was a terrific crash about midnight as the car hit the house by the bedroom window, he said. He sprang out of bed, and his wife, following him, collapsed on the floor. She was aged 60. Then he got her back to bed, and got her some water. She had another turn, saying she was going to faint again, when he went off to get a doctor. There was no reason why the car could not negotiate the road properly. His wife had been unable to do anything since the accident, and now he had to do the housework and cooking. Sometimes she seemed to be very shaky and flushed. A man who lived a quarter of a mile from the scene of the accident, Geoffrey Newman, of 88 Maida Vale Road, said that a loud noise caused him to wake up on the night of the accident. “How do you know it was the same event?” asked Mr. O’Leary. “Yours is purely speculation, isn’t it?” Another witness who heard the crash was Kate Louisa Hollis, a married woman living in 3 Palliser Road, next door to the Alexanders. She had seen Mrs. Alexander very little since the accident and had noticed a marked difference in her appearance. Case for Defence. The defence was outlined by Mr. O’Leary, who said that Mr. O’Donovan had a new car which he had bought at 5 p.m. on the day of the accident. The corner he had to go round in Palliser Road was bad. When he came to the corner he wanted to slow down, but instead of putting his foot on the brake he put it on the accelerator. The car did not come into contact with the Alexander house at all. His car was higher powered than his previous one, said O’Donovan. The accelerator in the new car was in a different position from where it was in the old one. He knew the road fairly well, and had been driving for six years. As he approached the corner, instead of applying the brakes he put his foot on the accelerator, and the result was that he ran into the garage, but the car did not finish up against the house. He had no idea of the pace at which he was travelling when he hit the garage. Cross-examined by Mr. Treadwell, defendant said that he had been aware of the difference of the new position of the accelerator as he had been for a short drive earlier in the evening in his new car. It was necessary to put on the brake to negotiate his corner. There was clear evidence that Mrs. Alexander had had the misfortune to suffer physical injury as a result of being called upon to endure an undue strain, Mr. Treadwell said. Because she had leapt out of bed she had received physical injury and nervous injury. Defendant had impugned on her legal right to personal safety, and her right to be protected in this respect. He quoted legal cases in support of his contention. In order to disprove them, Mr. O’Leary entered upon long legal argument. He pointed out the effect of making a precedent for awarding damages to people who received shock as the result of an accident. “This case goes further than any of the reported cases,” he said. There was no duty which extended as far as that the driver of the vehicle on the highway had to make provision for the occupants of every house which he passed.