WIFE'S INJURIES

Evening Post, Volume CXV, Issue 103, 4 May 1933, Page 12

WIFE'S INJURIES

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES

MOTOR COLLISION CASE

Injuries suffered by Mrs. Mary Margaret -Mackenzie in an accident last January were the basis of a claim for damages brought in the Supreme Court today by her and her husband,. Peter Mackenzie, engineer, of Wellington, against Messrs. T. and \V. Young, merchants, of Wellington. The action, which was heard,by the Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers) and a jury, was a sequel to a collision, about 5 p.m. on January 9, at the intersection of Pirio Street and Kent Terrace between motor-cars driven by Mr. Mackenzie arid Mr. W. H. Leach, town traveller for Messrs. T. and, W. Young, respectively; , The ,'special damages claimed were £82 6s; in ;addition. Mrs. Mackenzie sought to recover £.750 as general damages, and her husband £350 general damages. •••• Mr.'O.'.C. Mazengarb appeared for the plaintiffs and Mr. A. T. . Young, with Mr. D. W. Virtue, for the defendants. : According to evidence for the plaintiffs, Mr. Mackenzie was driving his wife in his ear along Kent Terrace in a southerly.direction when the motors ear driven by Mr. Leach suddenly' shot out from Pirie Street across the intersection, striking the front of Mr. Mackenzie's car with, the rear of his car. Mrs. Mackenzie was thrown out of her husband's car, receiving a badly fractured right shoulder with displacement of the humerus and other wounds and bruises. As a result she had been in bed live weeks, and the view was that she would be permanently unable to' perform certain household duties, The husband had been put to considerable expense and had also lost the benefit of his wife's society and services. ; It was alleged that the defendants' traveller was negligent in (a) driving at an excessive speed; (b) failing, to keep a proper look-out; (c) failing to observe the plaintiffs' car;v (d) failing to give warning of his intention to cross the intersection; (c) failing to give way to traffic on his right, and (f) failing to slow down and steer clear of the plaintiffs' car. Tire statement of defence denied the allegations of negligence 'and also the extent and effect of Mrs. Mackenzie's injuries. For a further defence, it was alleged that if the defendants were found to have been guilty of negligence, nevertheless, the accident was caused by the contributory negligence of Mr. Mackenzie in. (a) driving at an excessive speed; (b) failing to keep a proper look out; (c) failing to giv.e warning of his approach; (d) failing to stop, slow down, or otherwise steer clear of the defendants' car, and (c) by following too closely behind another motor-car and overtaking it at an intersection or corner. . . Dr. E. W. Giesen, the 'first witness for the defence, said that as far as he could see when Mrs. Mackenzie's treatment was completed she . would have a useful arm again. ■ The hearing of evidence was .unfinished at the time of going to press.