A WOMAN'S INJURIES

Evening Post, Volume CX, Issue 36, 11 August 1930, Page 11

A WOMAN'S INJURIES

ISLAND BAY ACCIDENT

ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES

General damages and special damages amounting in all to £1112 4s Cd were claimed in the Supreme Court to-day by William MacGlashan Smith, waterside worker, of Wellington, and his wife, Charlotte Smith, a bookseller, from Gilbert Jepson, motor mechanic, as a result of an accident at Island Bay last November, in which Mrs. Smith was seriously injured. The case was heard by Mr. Justice Ostler and a jury. Mr. "VV. E. Leicester appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. C. A. L. TrcadwcU for the defendants. .„. Opening the case for the plaintiffs, Mr. Leicester said that the accident happened shortly after 10 p.m. on Ist November. When Mrs. Smith and her daughter, Elsie Margaret Smith, aged 17, were crossing the road about 200 yards from the Island Bay tram terminus, they were run down by a motorcycle, ridden by Jepson, and a side-ear, in which there was another man. The motor-cycle overtook Mrs. Smith and her daughter, and it was alleged they neither saw nor hoard the machine come round the corner. Mrs. Smith was severely injured, and the daughter suffered minor bruises and abrasions. As a result of the accident certain charges were brought against Jepson by the police. Jcpsori pleaded guilty to having ridden the motor?cyclo without proper lights, and although he deferided a charge of negligent driving, lie was convicted and lined on that charge. Proceedings wore then commenced against the defendant for, damages, and although at first Jepson denied negligence and attributed" the accident to Mrs. Smith, last Friday he filed an admission of liability, and paid a sum for damages into Court. It would not bo necessary for the jury to decide whether the motor-cyclist was negligent to a gross degree or only negligent to a. slight degree. The only task for the jury was to decide what was a»f air and reasonable amount to which the plaintiffs should be entitled.

Counsel said that since the accident Smith had kept his wife's shop going, and after all expenses he had only been ablo to make 13s 6d. Tho plaintiff's home had been broken up since the accident. Smith was a waterside worker by occupation, and for some years prior to the accident he earnod £3 10s to £4 10s a week. Since the accident he had been able to work only two days on the waterfront, and he was claiming at tho rate of £2 10s a week from Ist November. The daughter had to be boarded out, and a claim was being made in this respect also. "AN OUTRAGE AND INSULT." Evidence was given by Dr. Gillies, orthopaedic' specialist at Wellington Hospital, and the plaintiffs, after which counsel and his Honour addressed the jury.

. Mr. Treadwell invited the jury to come to the conclusion that the size of the claim was an outrage and an insult to their intelligence. Counsel submitted it was a classic example of an extortionate claim. Acting on his advico Jcpson had-, paid in £400, and that he contended was a fair and perhaps even a greater amount, than that to which the plaintiffs were entitled. Tho claim, counsel repeated, was a scandalous insult to the jury's intelligence. The jury retired at tho luncheon adjournment, and had not returned at the time of going to press.