A SUDDEN STOP

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 134, 3 December 1926, Page 9

A SUDDEN STOP

ACCIDENT ON TRAMCAR

CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION.

An accident which happened to a passenger on a tramcar on the evening of 6th May had a sequel in the Supreme Court to-day before Mr. Justice MacGregor, when Francis Roberts Oakden, a storeman, claimed £414 Is special and general damages from the Wellington City Corporation. The plaintiff's statement was that while he was descending the stairs of a double-decker tramcar, preparatory to alighting near the Newtown tramsheds, tho tramcar was suddenly stopped through the trolley-poll coming off the overhead wire, and tho plaintiff was thrown violently against a portion of . the car and lost consciousness. Ho was taken to the Hospital, where he remained a week, but had been off work for 20i weeks. The plaintiff alleged that the tramcar had been unskilfully managed in being brought to a sudden stoppage near the junction of Mansfield street and Rusßell terrace. The plaintiff said he had received injuries to his sight and hearing, and his nervous system. While pleading that tho onus was on the defendant Corporation to explain the reason for the sudden stoppage of the tramcar, the plaintiff claimed, firstly, that tho Corporation had, through its servants, allowed the overhead wire at the place where the accident occurred, to be qut-of-date and defective, also that at the time of tho accident, through the negligence of the Corporation's servants, tho overhead gear was not in a condition to allow-tho tramcar to proceed properly on its journey, and that, notwithstanding the defective overhead gear, the tramcar should not have been stopped so suddenly. On behalf of the plaintiff, Mr. 0. C. Mazengarb said that he would be partially incapacitated for some time. He would, however, have to withdraw the claim for damages as compensation for permanent injury to one ear, owing to the fact that counsel had recently ascertained that the plaintiff had been duping the specialists. It had now been proved that no permanent injury had been caused to the ear. The damages claimed would be to cover loss of wages, hospital expenses, and 'reasonable allowance for pain and suffering. ALLEGATION OP DECEPTION. The defence consisted of a general denial of the plaintiff's claims. On behalf of the Corporation, Mr. J. O'Shea objected to the manner in which Mr. Mazengarb had announced that the claim for the injury to the plaintiff's hearing had been removed. "I think it is an astounding thing," he said, "that I should come here prepared to meet a case of malingering, only to be told by Mr. Mazengarb that this claim has been removed." His Honour: "Well, you ought to be very pleased." After a number of witnesses had been cros--examined, Mr. O'Shea said that'the defence was that the plaintiff had been shamming all tho time. "We say that thero was no negligence on the part of the Corporation, ' he said, "but that the accident was Sine of those happenings which cannot be prevented."

His Honour:"But you can prevent the cars being pulled up so suddenly as to knock people about." Mr. O'Shea: "It is the rule to pull up quickly when the lights go out."

His Honour: "I am afraid I cannot help it. If" people are injured, you will have to pay for it." Mr. O'Shea said the plaintiff's whole attitude had been one of decoption and attempt to defraud. .' He was not hurt to the extent he had suggested. He simulated symptoms to show brain injury, and he simulated weakness of vision and deafness. Counsel submitted that there had been _o evidence to show negligence on the part of the Corporation.