ACCIDENT SEQUEL

Evening Post, Volume CXVI, Issue 28, 2 August 1933, Page 8

ACCIDENT SEQUEL

' FIRE ENGINE'S SKID

WATERSIDER INJURED

OVEE £5000 CLAIMED

■ A sequel to the- accident in Featherston Street in April last, when a fire engine skidded, knocking a man against the fence of the Government Printing Office and severely injuring him, is being heard in tho Supreme Court today.' The injured man, Arthur McSperrin, a waterside worker, is claiming damages totalling £.5087 6s Cd from tho Wellington Fire Board and Henry John Wynne, a civil engineer,. of Wellington. Tho • accident occurred about 6 p.m.. on April 18 last. The fire engine was going down FeatlierstOn Street on its way to a gorso fire at Kaiwarra, and when about to cross tho intersection at Bunny Street it swerved and then skidded in avoiding,a motor-car driven by the defendant Wynne which, coining from Lamb ton Station", had turned into the intersection in front of the fire engine. lir skidding, the firo engine mounted the footpath at the back of the Government Printing Offieo and swung round, tho ladder striking McSperrin, who had been standing on the footpath, on the head. Mr. Justice MacGregor and a jury of twelve are trying the action. Mr. H. F. O'LOary, with Mr. L. K. Wilson, appears for the plaintiff; Mr. G. G. G. Watson, With Mr. W. P. Shorland, for tho Wellington Fire Board; and Mr. W, Perry for tho defendant Wynne.' SKULL FRACTURED. As a result of tho accident tho plaiutill sustained a severe head injury. He was rendered completely unconscious by a blow on the left sido of his head which fractured his skull and caused a largo clot to form between the skull bone and the membrano covering tho brain, and pressure upoii this clot caused paralysis of the right sjdo of tho body." An operation was performed on tho plaintiff and an area of bone approximating three inches by thrco inches was removed from his skull, leaving tho brain unprotected in that locality. It is claimed by tho plaintiff that tho accident was duo to the joint negligence of both tho defendants, or, alternatively, to tho separate negligence of one or tho other of tho defendants. .It was alleged that the driver .'of the flf^o engino Was negligent in the following respects:—(l) Driving at an excessive speed; (2) failing to keep a proper look-out; (3) applying his brakes too quickly or unnecessarily and negligently, and unskilfully handling the fire engine so as to cause a skid; and (4) failing to keep to tho left-hand of tho contro lino of tho streot. «. ' ■ ' ThO second defendant, it was contended, was negligent (a) in turning to his right out ortho' Ijue- of traffic across traffic proceeding in tho opposito diroctiou without taking proper'precautions'; (b) in. failing to give way tp the flro engino which was approaching from his right; (c) in failing to stop his motorcar in timo to allow the fire engine to proccod past him; (d) in attempting to cross in front of tho approaching fire engine; (o) in failing to maintain his position to the left centre lino of Fcathorston Street until ho had passed tho centre line of Bunny street; (f)-driving in such a manner as to obstruct the passage of tho firo engino engaged in connection with an outbreak of fire; (g) in' failing to stop his car and remain stationary on the approach and during tho passing of the fire engine. Tho defence is a general denial of any and all allegations of negligence. AN INNOCENT PARTY. "The outstanding featuro of this ease which distinguishes it from nine out of ten of the cases that come before this Court; is that the plaintiff is a perfectly innocent party in the occurronce," said Mr; ,o'Leary in opening his ease. The plaintiff, he said, was not a motorist, nor had he been in the road, but had taken the safe course of waiting on the footpath" until the fire engine had gone past. He could remember nothing after leaving the restaurant where ho had had his tea until he. woko up in tho hospital a fortnight later. Ho had brought the action against both the defendants beeauso his advisors considered both were to blame. It was appreciated that a iire engine had to get to a iiro as quickly as possible, but tho submission was that it could not go so fast as to endanger the life and limb of persons on the highway. As far as tho defendant Wynne was concerned it was submitted that ho was negligent in cutting over tho road and crossing in front of'tho fire engine. That was really the crux of the thing. After tho jury had inspected the scene of the accident, Dr. Alan Park gave evidence us to the operation-per-formed on the plaintiff and hie condition afterwards. He said that the plaintiff's chances of returning to work at all were very slim. It was not impossible that ho should bo able to earn his living again, but tho extent of his ipjury was os great that it was highly improbable, especially now that ho was having attacks of giddiness and delusions. . Sir Donald McGavin gave it as his opinion that the plaintiff's chance of ever earning his living again was very slight. ■ Kenneth McLeod, a waterside worker, who was standing on the same corner as tho plaintiff, but a littlo distanfb away from him, said that ho saw both Wynne's car coming from Lambton Station and tho fire engine coming down Featlierston Street. Wynne's car commenced to. cross tho road into Bunny Street beforo it reached tho line of intersection of Bunny Street, and witness then turned to see what tho firo engino would do because ho thought there was going to-be a smash. The fire engine pulled to its left aud made as if to come on to the footpath where witness and McSperrin were standing. The driver applied his brakes and the engine swung round, coming to rest facing the opposito way to that which it .had been going. Witness did not sco McSporrin hit, but ho heard something being thrown up against the fence. The iire eugino was going at "a pretty good speed." In answer to Mr. Watson the witness said ho thought a sudden position of danger was created by tho motor-car crossing tho street::in front of tho engine and that unless tho .driver of the latter vehicle did something suddenly there would be a bad smash. As far its ho could soo the driver of tho fire engine did everything ho could to avoid a smash. The firo engino was travelling at about its usual speed and its siren was sounding all tho time. ' Mr. Watson: Well, really, Mi\ MeLeod, as far as you could soo, the fire engine was going about its ordinary duty in its ordinary way and the driver did all he could to avoid a bad smashup? Witness: Yos, that is so.