NEGLIGENCE PROVED

Evening Post, Volume CIX, Issue 108, 9 May 1930, Page 4

NEGLIGENCE PROVED

RUNAWAY CAR

DAMAGES FOR INJURED CHILD

The hearing of. the claim for £1003 6s 6d damages; by Leila-Woods against Cecil Alfred.jSadlcr, a /motor-car salesman, for alleged, i.egligeiico, was continued in the Supreme Court yestorday afternoon before Mr. Justice Reed and a jury of twelve. The circumstances were that the plaintiff, a girl of 15 years, was knocked over and injured

by the defendant's car, which got out

•;■ of control and ran down Essex street ! some time after being parked. The ! statement, of i claim alleged negligence, '- and the defence was an assertion that

v all precautions had been taken, that the accident had happened twenty-five inin- ---" utes after the ear had been parked, and that the ear must have been interfered with.

,-the _case., for the ...defence, | Mr. H. 1\ O'Leary said the car was .* parked ■on the right side instead of "the left, where there was a wall and I iio curb, because if it got out of hand /it would glance off the wall and then.

"run down tho hill. It was the custom >'■ of others to park on the wrong side of ii the road for the same reason. The car .had been parked for at least twentyTfivo minutes before the accident. It 'was in reverse gear, and brakes were '■on. It was submitted by the defence i that someone had interfered with tho * car.. .'...„,. .". . ~

:/■ John Edward Perry, of !>, Essex ■ street, said that the car had been parked ' outside his house. The defendant was .' staying with him at the time, and came ; home about 5.45 or 5.50. Witness loft the house at 0.15, and tho car. was .' parked parallel to the curb, with the •right-hand front wheel turned into the i. curb. .He had paid particular • attenition'to the car, as the previous time v.ho;;had seen it the car was clean and ;;:it;was now dirty. j:v;■:Mr. jParry: "You are interested in •i ■anythingl---dirty-:?" .:■ ' " :,;;-'--'Witness: "I make an absolute study ;;;of:it.^ .7.;': : . "■. •: ■

;,;:::.:'Witness-said that he had frequently i,:seen children playing ou and about '-cars parked' in the street. V- The defendant, Cecil Alfred Sadler, :'said that he had an artificial leg, and on his1 ear the; clutch and brake pedal •were combined. Half-way" in the ap>pliance acted as a clutch, and full in -as a brake. He had parked the car ; into the curb, and had left it in reverse ; and with the hand-brake on. ' Before leaving the car he had given it a push -3n-order to see that it was secure.-He considered that he had been in the! ,'. house at least half an hour before hei -heard of the accident. He had ar- • iriyed in the house at 5.50,-"and the ■ajmbulance had ieceived the call at; 6.24. ; To Mr. Parryy\lie; said he would not .Ilbe/sure', that the front wheel had been light up against the'curb. ■ It might have been two inches!away. When, he examined the car at the. bottom of the Sili-itiwas out?of gear, and.he was eer:.taih,"lihat. it had-been interfered: with. At.^night he parked the car on the ' other' side of the 'road, .at' right angles, to the wall, .and Mr'.lParry suggested ■:that^thisiSras^the safes.yway. in which v_tSfls?car coiild^be. parked:-: ~; :j;^'^,alter William Withy^a-'motor enand assessor, said that he had Bubsequently placed the car'in the position in: which he" had been told it, had been parked, and allowed it to run. It followed the course it had taken_ at .the time ,of-the accident. In a similar experiment another make of ear had ;ixun towards^the-fence. . , ~ . ;!'iDorothy. Eiejinbr^Sadler, wifp : of the defendant", said':tiiat:.the defendant had '^run the car into.'.its v .parking position 'in reverse, and hadfleftrit in that gear. She was certain that- the car had not been parked with a wheel mounted on the curb. Her husband had always ■been very careful, and she herself had always seen that ho had put the car safely in position. She had seen children playing in the car on the previous '■■ ;■ :Iu the present case, said his Honour, the onus was on the defendant to show ■^hat-be had not been negligent, and it was the duty of the jury to decide whether'the defendafit had been guilty or .' -': "'"''!.; ;.': . •■ '

; After. a: retirement of twenty _ minutes the jury found-for tho plaintiff, with '£200 general damages and £63 6s 6d special damages..l Costs were allowed to-' the plaintiff -according to scale. "•■.'.- ■"; .'" . • .

• 'If-it is any satisfaction.-to you," :asid his Honour- to the "jury, "those Were^exactly the damages which I had iinyself decided on a.s appropriate."