Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

SUPREME COURT.

- -' ■» CIVIL SITTINGS. This Day. (Before Mr. Justice Edwards.) ATMORE V. KIRKCALDIE. This case was heard b}' a special jury, comprising Messrs. J. J. Casey (foreman), S. C. Barraud, A. A. Bowley, G. W. Woods, J. Dawsou, J . E. Fulton, J. C. Stevenson, 3?. Mitchell, G. A. Chapman, G. M. Hueston, R. W. Gibbs, and F. W. Gardner. Mr. Skerretb appeared for plaintiff, and Sir Eoberfc Stout (instructed by Messrs. Martin and Richmond) for the defendant. In his statement of claim plaintiff alleged that on the 3rd September, 1897, whilst he j was in the employ of the defendant as manager of the carpet warehouse, St. George's Hal), Lambton-quay, he met with an accident which he claimed was due to defendant's negligence. It appeared that whilst he was carrying a roll of linoleum across the floor of the warehouse the floor gave way beneath him, causing him to fall some 4ft. His leg was torn by a nail, and he also sustained "considerable and permanent injury" to his knee and leg, and had been put to expense in the way of medical attendance and loss caused by absence from work. The damages claimed were £501. The defendant l-epudiated all liability, slating that the plaintiff knew the flooring of the hall to be old and worn, and took all risks in working thereon by continuing in defendant's employ. Further, plaintiff hud sole charge of the warehouse, and had a carpenter ahvaj's at his disposal, so that kjiowincr any part to be in an unsafe condition, he (plaintiff) should have had that part repaired with new flooring. The injury was therefore due to plaintiff's own negligence. After medical and other evidence had been given for the plaintiff, Sir Robert Stout moved for a non-suit, on the ground of contributory negligence. Mr. Skerrett contended that that the known state of the floor cast upon the defendant the duty of examination thereof to see that it was in a safe condition. His Honour refused the non-suit, but reserved the point, and the defence is being gone into as we go to press.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/EP18980725.2.45

Bibliographic details

Evening Post, Volume LVI, Issue 21, 25 July 1898, Page 6

Word Count
349

SUPREME COURT. Evening Post, Volume LVI, Issue 21, 25 July 1898, Page 6

SUPREME COURT. Evening Post, Volume LVI, Issue 21, 25 July 1898, Page 6

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert