DAMAGES CLAIMED

Evening Post, Volume CXIV, Issue 25, 29 July 1932, Page 9

DAMAGES CLAIMED

NEWTOWN ACCIDENT

EVIDENCE ABOUT LIGHTS

The hearing of evidence tn tho\ claim, brought in the Supreme Court by Irene Addis' Smith, against Caroline Priueilla Purdie and Lawrence James Purdie for £1122 4s 7d damages was continued be-, fore Mr. Justice MacGregor and a jury yesterday afternoon. The. case was a sequel to an accident which oo^ curred at th» intersection of Biddiford and Bintoul streets on the evening of 20th November^ 1931, Mrs; Smith being injured through being struck by a motor-car driven by Mr". Purdie. : Continuing the evidence on behalf of the plaintiff, Malcolm Bom Wilson, ,a tram condnctor> who : ■witnessed^ the accident,, said-that th'o car had sidelights on and he estimated its speed was at least1 30 miles- an hour. The plaintiff looked to left and right when crossing the road. The car's lights were difficult to pick up» Witness said he did not remember having: told the police (that the headlights were. on. Ho.admitted, under cross-examination, that he might have been mistaken about the nature of the lights diaplayed. - At the conclusion of the plaintiff's case counsel for the defendants applied for a non-suit on the ground that tho plaintiff was guilty of negligence in fail-' ing. to see tho car approaching. Had she kept a proper look-out she must have seen the car. . Tho non-suit point was reserved. Continuing, counsel said that Mrs, Purdie was not travelling at moro than 15 miles an hour and.did not.Bee Mrs. Smith until the latter was two feet from the car. She did not sound the horn as she saw no one. Counsel eon-' tended that the estimate* of speed mado by witnesses for the plaintiff were not reliable in view of the short distance the car was seen to cover. The fact that the car pulled up in six feet after the accident disproved the suggestion of excessive speed. It was urged that in any ease the was guilty 6f contributory' negligence. '•"■■- Dn K. W. Giesen considered' that it would be some' months before the plain-; tiff could resume her. normal occupation He did not think there would be any permanent partial disability. Constable E. G. Sutherland said that he interviewed the witness Wilson three days after the accident Wilson told him that the car's headlights were burning at the time. Asked if be could produce Wilson's statement witness said he would first require the authority of the sub-inspector. He said he had not disclosed the ■ statement to the defendents. A ■ ■■■...-■•■.■ ■..'■• His Honour Adjourned the Court for the production of the statement. When the Court resumed the constable said lie had been unable to get in touch with his superior officer and so could not produce the statement. His Honour instructed the witness to attend to-day, and to see the sub-inspec-tor in the meantime regarding-the statement. ■ ■-•,'• L. J. Purdie, one of the defendants, said that before and after th© accident the car's headlights were in good order. It would be difficult for a motorist to see a pedestrian in tho locality on a wet night owing to the street and shop lights. ... . When the hearing was resumed today, Constable Sutherland produced a statement made by the witness Wilson. The. statement set. out that the car's headlight* were burning at the time of tho accident, and the street was'well lighted. imi ' Mrs. ; Smith .were quite conspicuous,; and the driver of, the car should have been, able to see them quite, easily.. He (Wilson) considered that the accident was caused by the car's excessive speed over the intersection and the driver '» failure to keep a proper look-out. ■Mrs. Purdie said that when the car struck the. plaintiff the headlights wore on and speed was not more than fifteen miles an hour. Pino, .drizzling, rain was falling, but she had no difficulty in seeing tho road-ahead. . When she first saw t-he plaintiff she was only two feet away. Someone called, "Look out," at practically the same moment. There was no opportunity of avoiding the accident. Witness saw nothing to obscure tho plaintiff's, view once she had: passed round the back of the tramcar from which she alighted. Cross-examined, witness said thatshe had' had the parking lights oi earlier in the evening when tho car was stationary. Tho end of the wind screen might have been wet, preventing her from seeing the plaintiff before She thought it was the duty of pedes trians crossing tho road to keep a look put for traffic. It did. hot occur t< her that someone might leave the tram to cross the road. Nevertheless she was' keeping'a look-out for anyone on" the road.

Counsel proceeded to address the jury.: : .-''.. v