GIRL'S INJURIES

Evening Post, Volume CXVIII, Issue 32, 7 August 1934, Page 13

GIRL'S INJURIES

LOSS OF SCHOOLING

JURY AWARDS DAMAGES

Owioral damages aL'_ £150 and special dumagoaoi £-10 0s (sd ; were awarded by a jury 'iu\.i.hc Supreme Court. last evening'to a. schoolgirl, ,lonr.i Inwood, aged.l 2, -\vlio: through ■herifat-hor, li-vino Y. H. ■ Inwcrod, elai'mcd "iC3!)(S Os ( 5d gi-noi-iil and special damages from rullcr-Liptou, Ltd., grouers, of Wellington. Tho action was a sequel to un. accident on'Tho Parade,lsland Bay, on December 15via^t;;.ycar i| -when- the girl was injured;'as 0"1^ run into by a niotof-van -■belonging.; to the defendant company. Mr. Justice Ostler presided. Mr. J. Meltzer appeared for tho plain lift and Mr. X Perry for the defendant. Tho accident happened about 7.30 in tho evening. Tho statement, of claim alleged that tho driver of the motorvan, George Imlaeh, was driving at an excessive: speed; that-ho-failed tp.keep a proper lookout; failed to steer clear of the .girl;' and failed to slow down, stop, or otherwise avoid the ■ accident. The girl's right arm was broken; sne also suffered other injuries, and her clothing was damaged. It was alsoclaimed that injuries had caused permanent disfigurement of her right arm. She had been unablo to attend school, and hospital and medical expenses had been incurred. :: Tho statement of defence denied.that the van-driver had been negligent, and, further, and/or, iv the alternative,'said that if Imlaeh was guilty of any negligence or unskilfulhess the-girl lierseit was negligent in one or more respects which contributed to the cause of tho accident. Tho acts of negligence- alleged by tho defence against tho girl were: (a) Bunu'ing out into _the roadway for an article which was being carried along by the wind; (b) failing to keep a proper lookout; and (c) altering her direction without any, or alternatively, sufficient warning. The girl gave.ovidencej that she wont out on to the roadway to retriovo a hat. Before doing so she let a motorcar pass her. In tho distance she saw a red speck, which sho knew was. another motor-vehicle, but she thought it was far enough away to enable her to get the hat, which had not blown far from tlio footpath. Baring her arm a* the request of Mr. Meltzer the girJ exhibited a long rodsear where her arm had been broken. Sho described tho. other injuries she received, and said that at night she was still nervous sometimes. TOE THE DEFENCE. Goorgo luilacli, the driver of the motor-van, said he was driving.in a southerly direction down Tho. Parade. He saw a girl leavo tho footpath and run out into the road. She ran out, in a diagonal direction and ho thought she intonded crossing the road. His van was travelling at approximately 25 miles an hour between tho first tram track and the kerb. When the girl got to tho first tram lino sho picked up some object. Sho then ran back in front of the van and ho was unable to avoid running into her. If the girl had stopped at the point whero she picked up the object or if she had continued to cross the road in a diagonal direction, tho accident would not have happened. Cross-examined by Mr. Meltzor, witness admitted that in connection with the accident ho had been convicted on a charge of dangerous driving. As far as lie could fix itliisvan was about 130 ft away.when tho girl ran out into the road.' ... -..■■:■ -, ■■.-'.'■..:: : - Mr. Meltzer referred. ' witness ..to ovidenco given by the girl, an aunt, and the girl's father as to the course the girl took. Imlaeh said this cvidenco was incorrect. , ■ Imlaeh admitted that ho had tho girl in view from tho time sho left f footpath. Mr. Meltzer suggested to him that if he had been travelling at a reasonable speed he should have been able to avoid .the accident . no matter' what the 'girl 'did. ..With.'.."this' Imlaeh did not agree. In answer to Mr. Multzer, Henry James Gill, foreman-at Magnus Motors, a witness for the defence, admitted that if, as Constable Baker had statod, tho van left skid marks of 51ft, ho thought it would have been travelling at a greater speod than 25 miles an hour. Tho jury retired at 5 p.m. and returned with their verdict for tho plaintiff at 6.20 p.m. In answer to questions put to thbin by the Court, tho jury found tha|. the accident was caused by negligence* on the part of the van-driver and that tjiere was no negligence on tlie part of the girl which; was a contributing factor.: