LIABILITY ADMITTED

Evening Post, Volume CXVII, Issue 110, 11 May 1934, Page 8

LIABILITY ADMITTED

INJURIES IN ACCIDENT

£2500 DAMAGES AWARDED

A sudden change in the course, of a legal action to recover £3000 damages for injuries was witnessed in the Supreme Court before Mr. Justice Eecd and a jury this morning. The ease was that in which Russel James Lewis Hayston, aged 20, a joiner's apprentice, and his father, Percy Hayston, of Upper Hutt, farmer, are proceeding against Stanley Herbert Powell, of Lower Hutt, taxi-driver, the owner but not the driver of a- car- which caused serious injuries to Hayston, junior. The claim for £3000 general and special damages, the plaintiff having received injuries necessitating two amputation operations to his right leg, to the extent ■ that, according to four witnesses, he will not be able to pursue his ■ occupation. The plaintiff was brought from the Public Hospital yesterday afternoon attended by two nurses, and he gave his evidence in the body of the court as he lay in bed, reclining against raised pillows. The plaintiff's case was not completed yesterday afternoon.

This morning all the counsel conferred before the court sat, and on the resumption' Mr. J. B. Callan, K.C., for the ■ defendant, admitted liability for the • accident, and intimated that tho question for decision would be only the amount of damages. He said that Mr. O. C. Mazengarb had pointed out that the defendant Powell was not in the ear when'the collision occurred. The defence could not and ought not to contest the responsibility of Powell, and admitted responsibility for the accident. All counsel would have liked to com-plete-the-matter and relieve the jury. But the plaintiff was a minor, and both he-and his father-would need to amply discuss the matter.

The son was so near to 21, counsel said in answer to a query by his Honour, that the father felt he should be consulted; but the son was in hospital. Mr. Mazengarb said he appreciated the fair and proper- attitude of counsel for the defence. He would call evidence concerned with the question of damages only, and close his case.

Evidence was given that the plain-tiff-had practicaly no prospects of.taking part- in- cabinetmaking or joinery w-orfc. ADDRESSES TO JURY. Counsel addressed the jury just before noon. Mr.. Mazengarb referred to the fact that an actuary in evidence gave a man of 21 years of age a prospect of 48 years' life. The plaintiff would be 21 next birthday, and before the accident he had been earning £2 5s a week. Based upon earnings of £2 a week the amount that would require investment to return £2 a week for 48 years would be £2212.

Mr. Callan mentioned the fact that £3000 general and special damages had been claimed. "If you give £3000, I ask you, gentlemen, how much you would give a man with a lot of children or a man who couldn't raise his little finger!" said counsel. He contended that one-legged men were working successfully in many spheres of life, and that with a reasonable amount of capital the plaintiff would be able to acquire a business. His Honour said that the jury should award a reasonable amount by way of damages. The defence quite rightly had withdrawn its defence to the action. The plaintiff could not be compensated wholly for the loss of his leg, but the jury must give him compensation so ■ far as money would compensate. "It is my.duty to warn you in connection with the actuarial, evidence," said his Honour. "That matter has been considered in the Courts as to whether you can accept that evidence. It has been held that you can't." It had been-held that an annuity could not be given on an absolute basis which failed to take into account contingencies such as accident or death.

After a retirement of an hour the jury awarded £2500 general and special damages.