CLAIM FOE DAMAGES. A BUILDING ACCIDENT.

Evening Post, Volume LXXVI, Issue 143, 16 December 1908, Page 3

CLAIM FOE DAMAGES. A BUILDING ACCIDENT.

PLAINTIFF AWARDED £250. Mr. Justice Chapman yesterday afternoon awarded Henry Smith, of Kilbirnie, contractor, £250 of his claim of £1500 against Frederick Gould Sanders and Henry Sanders, trading as Sanders Bros., Ingestre-street, Wellington, contractors. The claim was made in consequence of an accident on 22nd April, 1908. On that date the defendants were erecting I the Civil Service Club, and plaintiff was carting bricks to the works. Whilst plaintiff was unloading a dray a brick j. fell from the building and struck him on the head, causing injuries which, according to some medical men, will take a year or more to reiuedy. His Honour delivered judgment after the Post went to press. In the course of his x - ema,rks, his Honour said that the case was one which ought to have been, tried by a juiy. The parties, however, were both willing that his Honour should try it. The first question to'his jnind was from what source the brick came. It was for the plaintiff to prove that it came from a building in charge ot the defendants, and it was for plaintiff, upon the statement of claim made by him, to prove that its fall from the building was due to the carelessness of the defendants' servants. The starting point of thb evidence, to his Honour's mind, was that on the date on which the occurrence happened, or the next day, the defendants wrote a letter, signed by their firm, to tho proper functionary, making a report. in that letter they said that they regretted that an accident occurred at the Civil Service building owing to a brick falling from tho second floor. It first struck a windowsill, aud then glancing off the same, struck a driver of a brick cart on the head, causing a nasty bruise requiring medical attention. They stated that they had made careful enquiries, and found that the injury was accidental. His Honour said that he could not help thinking that the letter was to bo relied on, and must be relied on to the extent that it showed that the brick came from defendants' building. He was of opinion that it was not encumbent on the plaintiff to make out exactly what had happened, lie could not conceivo any process by which the brick left the building without being dependent on the negligenco of defendants' servants. As" a mattci of fact and law, he found that plaintiff had made out his case. With respect to the question of damages, it might be that the conclusion to which he Had come would be disappointing to 0110 or both parties. He could scarcely cay that there was any real dispute between the medical witnesses. Their evidence was to the effect that there was no trace of any actual physical lesion excepting in, perhaps, some sliglu, testimony in regard to tho examination of plaintiff's eyes by one of tho doctors. His Honour had no doubt whatever but that plaintiff would recover at an early date and be able to go about his business as usual. It was common ground that plaintiff was suffering from neurasthenia, and he took it that a distinct case of traumatic neurasthenia had not been made out. If plaintiff had been earning as much as he stated, it seemed to the court that it would have paid him to pay another man to carr> on his business. His Honour thought that the jury would have considered that if plaintiff made a greater effort he would have got better sooner. Putting sentiment to one side, he was therefore to make an assessment of what amount was chargeable to defendants in consequence of the negligence of their servants. His Honour awarded £250, and entered judgment accordingly, with costs as per scale, witnesses' expenses and disbursements, and an allowance of £10 10s for second day. Mr. T. M. Wilford appeared for plaintiff and Mr. C. if. Skerrett, K.C., with him Mr. ,W. H. D. Bell, for the defendants.