MOTOR-CAR SMASH

Evening Post, Volume LXXXVIII, Issue 127, 25 November 1914, Page 8

MOTOR-CAR SMASH

RECENT ACCIDENT TO DR. PLATTS-MILLS CLAIM AGAINST CITY CORPORATION. As the outcome of a motor-car accident in the early hours of 22nd April, Daisy Elizabeth Platte-Mills claimed frohi the Wellington City Corporation, at the Supreme Court to-day, the cum of £307 12s lid for 'injuries received to herself and her motor-car. The case was heard before his Honour Mr. Justice Edwards and a jury of four. Mr. C. P. Skerrett, K.C., with Mr. C. Samuel, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. J. O'Shea for 'the defendant City Council. Mr. Skerrett, in outlining the facts of the mishap, stated that on the morning of, the 22nd April plaintiff (who' is a well-known medical practitioner) received a call to an urgent case at Thorndon. She wae proceeding along Customhousequay at 2 a.m. at a speed of about twelve miles an hour, and when opposite the premises of Messrs. W. and G. Turnbull her motor-car — an American two-seater Hupmobile — collided with a tramway pole, the first of a series of poles in the middle of the roadway in that thoroughfare. The car was seriously damaged, and the plaintiff herself sustained .injuries and a shook. The morning was fairly dark, with a southerly wind and rain. Dr. Platts-Mille, who was a careful driver, had the glass screen down in front of the car, and had a perfectly uninterrupted v view in front of her. There were two regulation lamps in front of the car, but the big head lamps were not alight. These headlights were a positive danger owing to their excessive blinding power, and in ordinary circumstances there was no possible" use for them at all. The only lights in the locality were an arc lamp on" the Harbour Board's W shed, which threw the pole in the shadow, and a small street lamp at the corner of John-ton-street. The question for the jury was whether the conditions that existed at the time of the accident were a menace and a trap to people making use of the highway. The defence would be contributory negligence, that the car was insufficiently . lighted, that plaintiff failed to keep as near to the left side of the street as possible, and that she drove the car so recklessly, as to cause the accident. The plaintiff, in the course of her ©vi-" dence, stated that as the result of the accident t she sustained several bruises and "a sever© shock and nerve trouble. I Also she had had to undergo two operations for ailments arising from .the accident. For two months after the accident her practice had fallen away 50 per cent., and 70 per cent, in July. ■ Witness produced bills showing that the repairs to the car had cost £30 15b lid. ' (Proceeding.) '