YOUNG MAN'S DEATH

Evening Post, Volume CXVI, Issue 60, 8 September 1933, Page 9

YOUNG MAN'S DEATH

ISLAND BAT TRAGEDY

WIDOWED MOTHER'S CLAIM

A claim by Eunice Diekson, the widowed mother of Ernest Joseph Dickson, ono of the four people killed in the Island Bay motoring tragedy on April 2, was heard by the Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers) in the Supreme Court today. The defendant, Frederick' Hooker, who was driving the car at the time of the accident, did not appear. Mrs. Diekson claimed £500 damages from Hooker, alleging that his negligent driving of the car had caused the death of her son, ou whom she had been partially dependent, and from whom she had had a reasonable prospect of greater support in the future. His Honour reserved his decision. Mr. W. E. Leicester, who appeared for the plaintiff, said that the defendant, who was a single- man employed as a shop assistant, in Wellington, had written to him stating that he did not propose to defend the action, and would file if judgment were obtained against him.

His Honour asked if the defendant was covered by statutorj' insurance.

Counsel: No! He was driving the car, and the persons who were killed were all passengers. Proceeding formally- to prove the case, counsel outlined the circumstances of the accident.

His Honour said that the defendant had been acquitted by the jury at his trial on a charge of negligent driving causing death, and ho asked whether the presiding Judge had directed the jury in any particular way. Counsel said he understood that the Judge merely referred to the facts of the accident without directing the jury one way or the other. The suggestion had been made at the trial that the car was an old one, and that the brakes were not as good as they might have been. What possibly assisted the jury in coming to a conclusion in. favour of Hooker was the fact that a similar accident occurred at the same spot a short time after the tragedy. There were other factors, however, which went to show that Hooker should never have attempted to drive the car. Counsel then referred to the statement that the car had been started accidentally, and to other aspects of the accident, including Hooker's qualifications as a driver.

His Honour said he was not affected, of course, by the jury's verdict, but lie wanted to see whether the Judge at i.he trial had taken any particular view of the facts of the accident.

Counsel went on to state Mrs. Dickson's financial position, saying that she and her Jate husband had lost £.1700 in a private hotel venture, and that she was now barely able to keep a roof over her head by running a boarding-house. There had been every possibility that her son, the only child, would have increased his financial support. She had received £300 from, a group insurance scheme to which, he had subscribed.

His Honour expressed the opinion that, the insurance. money should be taken into consideration in determining the claim. Counsel referred to the principle followed in the case of I'indlater versus Dwan, that where a car was under the control of a person and an accident occurred which would not have happened in the ordinary course with proper care on the driver's part, then negligence should be inferred in the absence of any reasonable explanation. ' .; His Honour, said, he did not think it could be said' ab that stage that there wag a reasonable inference of want of care. The locality was a very dangerous one. Counsel submitted that the only possible inference from all the circumstances- of the accident was that tliere had been negligence. After the evidence of four witnesses had been heard, including that of one of the passengers in the car, counsel said that the Court could only attempt to arrive at what was a reasonable sum in the circumstances. Whatever sum was awarded, it might be difficult to enforce. His Honour said that the amount could not be very much. It was a matter of compensation, not damages, and really the plaintiff had benefited from her'son's death to" the extent of £300, when she was not getting a great deal from him. .. . Assuming that negligence whs fomul against the defendant, 1 ho plaintiff might be entitled to only a small sum, but that fact must not be taken to mean that the Court held any contemptuous view of the position" He would go through the evidence caerfully and give an oral judgment on Monday morning.