DAMAGES AWARDED

Evening Post, Volume CXVI, Issue 31, 5 August 1933, Page 13

DAMAGES AWARDED

WATERSIDEE'S CLAIM

MOTORIST HELD NEGLIGENT

FIRE BOARD SUCCEEDS

Absolving the driver of the fire engino from all blame, and holding that it was the negligence of the second defendant which caused the accident, a jury yesterday awarded Arthur McSperl'in, a waterside worker, of Wellington, a total of £1440 damages against Henry John Wynne, a retired civil engineer, in his claim against Wynne and the 'Wellington Fire Board. As a result of the jury's answers to the issues put to them regarding the claim against the Fire Board, judgment was entered for the. board. The- action was the outcome of an accident at the corner of Bunny and Fcatherston. Streets in April last. The plaintiff, McSperrin, was standing on the pavement and was struck on the head by the. overhanging 'ladder of a fire engine which . skidded after the brakes had been applied in an effort to avoid Wynne's car which was partially across the street. . At the conclusion yesterday afternoon of the addresses of counsel and the summing up of his Honour Mr. Justice MacGregor, a number of issues were put to the jury, and after a retirement of two hours they returned with what amounted to a verdict for the plaintiff against Wynne only. , The following were the issues and the jury's answers to them: — 1. Was the driver of the fire engine negligent: (a) in driving at an excessive speed?— No. (b) In failing to keep a proper look-out1? —No. (c) In applying his brakes too quickly or negligently handling the fire engine so as to cause a skid? —No. (d) In failing to keep to the left hand of the centre lino of the street? —-No. ■ , ■:-, . 2. Was the defendant Wynne negligent: (a) in turning to his right without taking proper precautions to ascertain that he would not thereby, create' a situation of peril to himself and the traffic proceeding in the opposite direction?— Yes. (b) In. failing to keep a. proper look-out? —Yes. (c) In failing to stop his motor-car in time to allow, the firo engine to proceed past him? — Yes. (d) In attempting to cross in front of the approaching fire enginel?—^ No answer. (c) In failing to maintain his position to the left of the centre line of Featherston Street until ho had entered the area- of the intersection of Featherston and Bunny Streets'? —Yes. (f) In driving his motor-car in such a ■manner as to obstruct the passage of the fire engine engaged in connection with an alarm or outbreak of fire? — Yes. (g.) In failing to stop his motorcar and causing it to remain stationary on tho approach of the fire engine1? — Yes. ', ■ N ' , . 4. If the answer to any one- of the foregoing be ■"yes)"- did such negligence contribute to the accident? —Yes. Special damages amounting to £78 and general amounting to £1368 were awarded, rv •' ' • • ' After the. jury's, answers had been read, Mr. H. F. O'Leary who appeared witLMr.L.K. Wilson for the- plaintiff, moved for judgment for the plaintiff against Wynne only, and also asked for an order that the costs of the successful defendant should bo paid direct by the unsuccessful defendant. Mr. G. G. G. Watson, who with Mr. W. P. Shorland appeared for the Wellington Fire Board, formally moved for judgment in favour of the Fire Board. . His Honour enterccl judgment accordingly, ordoring -that the -Fire Board's cost's in addition to tho plaintiff's ■should,-bo paid by ihe'unsuccessful defendant; Wynne. ''" ' '■'■ ;; .