A BIG CLAIM

Evening Post, Volume CXVI, Issue 29, 3 August 1933, Page 12

A BIG CLAIM

FIRE ENGINE'S SKID

WATERSIDER'S INJURY

■DRIVER'S EVIDENCE

The ease in which Arthur 51c Sp err in, a waterside worker, is proceeding against the Wellington Tiro Board nml Henry John Wynne, a civil engineer, of Wellington, for special and general damages amounting to £5057 0s Od, was continued in the Supreme Court today before Mr. Justice MaeGrcgor and a jury. The plaintiff suffered a severe head injury, when he was struck by the overhanging ladder of a fire engine- which skidded onto tho footpath at the corner of Bunny and Fcatherston Streets in April Last. The skid, it is alleged, was caused through the fire- engine having to swerve to avoid the defendant Wynne's ear which was crossing the road, in front of it. Mr.. 11. F. O'Leary with Mr. L. K. Wilson is appearing for the plaintiff; Mr.-G. G. G. Watson, with Mr. W. P. Shorland for tho Wellington Fire Board; and Mr. W. Perry for the defendant Wynne. At the close of the. plaintiff's case after "The Post" went to press yesterday, Mr. Watson, on behalf of the Fire Board, submitted that the plaintiff had not made out a case of negligence against the defendant board. The plaintiff's case had been so shaped that the evidence, in. his submission, had been directed to exculpating the Fire Board. There was no evidence before the Court that called-upon the board to answer tho plaintiff's allegations, anil at least two of the plaintiff's witnesses had said they considered the driver of the fire engine had done all he could to avoid the accident. Mr. O'Leary contended that the case was one in which the plaintiff was not tied to the allegations of negligence set out in the statement of claim. There was evidence that the fire onghio mounted the footpath, and it was submitted that when a vehicle did that there was evidence of negligence. The tremendous skid-marks, ho submitted, were evidence of excessive speed. His Honour said it seemed to Mm that on one or more grounds the case ought to go to the jury. Lcavo was reserved for the Fire Board to move later for a non-suit, or, alternatively, judgment in its favour. CASE FOR FIRE BOARD. Today medical evidence as to the* plaintiff's condition was given for the Fire Board'by Dr. J. Hislop and Dr. E. W. Gicscn, who agreed with Sir Donald McGavin that the plaintiff had made an extraordinary, recovery. They considered that his condition was still capable of improvement and saw no reason why ho should not be able to do suitable work once his period of recuperation was over. Neither doctor, however, thought it would be advisable for him to work on the wharf again or in any occupation where there was a risk of his being struck on ,the head. The driver of the lire engine, Eichard Phillip Wickenden, said he had been driving a fire engine for about five years. On the night of the accident he was driving tho first of two engines which were on their way to a five at Kaiwarra. There were seven men on his engine. The siren was sounding continuously until the time of the accident. After getting into Featherston Street the maximum speed he reached was about 30 miles an hour. Ho was sixty or seventy yards from the defendant AVynne's course when he first saw him. Witness eased over to the left to give Wynne a chance to pull up, but when ho did not do so, witness pulled harder over to the left and applied the brakes. The engine then, went into a skid and finished up facing in the opposite direction. * '- In answer to Mr. O'Leary, the witness said that in proceeding as he did Wynne took a very grave risk. Mr. O'Loary: As he came across did it appear to you that he had noticed you? ' Witness: Xo, it did not. Witness said he expected Wynne to stop long before lie.got up to the lino witness was taking.' It was "for that reason witness did not pull to the left earlier. Evidence was also given by DeputySuperintendent J. Creeke, who was sitting beside the driver. (Proceeding.)