STREET ACCIDENT

Evening Post, Volume CXVIII, Issue 33, 8 August 1934, Page 7

STREET ACCIDENT

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES

WATCHMAKER'S INJURIES

, Want of proper earc on tho part of the plaintiff before and in crossing a street used by vehicles was, broadly, tho defence to the action in tho Supreme Court in which Percy Mitchell, an itinerant watchmaker, claimed £1172 14s damages from Albert William Burton, a waterside worker, as a sequel to a motor accident in Tory Street. A summary of the case for the plaintiff was .■-given in yesterday'a "Post." The trial.of the action was continued yesterday afternoon and today before "Mr. Justice Ostler and a jury. . Mitchell alleged that he was knocked down in Tory Street about 6 p.m. on August 4, 1933,, by a motor-car driven by Burton,- and that the accident was due to negligence by Burton. Plaintiff suffered severe leg .injuries, and his po.lvis was also, fractured. Some months later through one 'of his cyutehes slipping on a polished floor ho;fell and his left knee where it had beck., broken was so affected that he had to go into hospital again. Much of the medical evidence was directed tb the condition. of the knee before and .aftdr. the fall, tho defence contending:/that'anydisability tho plaintiff now suffered was; a result of this occurrence./-!': ' >\. '' .

; Mr. B, H. Boys appeared''for the plaintiff, and Mr. W. J3." Leicester' for the defendant. : •- : ' ■

, Dr. E. \V. Griesen, .who examined the plaintiff on' behalf of the defendant and gave evidence before the defence was outlined, said that on February 27 he thought Mitchell was on the high road to recovery. When next ho saw Mitchell early in July the conditon of his left leg was considerably worse.-; In witness's opinion the present condition of Mitchell's. left knee was owing to his fall and not to the accident last 'year. • He did not think the knee would ever be dependable. Mr. Boys asked Dr. Giesen if the condition of the knee could not have been caused1 by weight being put on the leg for the first time. Dr. Giesen said it was conceivable, but he expressed the view'that it was extremely unlikely. '

THE DEFENCE. *In his outline of the defence, Mr. Leicester said that if the lights on the defendant's car were on, the plaintiff on his own admission was negligent in crossing the street. The only evidence that the lights were not on was the evidence of the plaintiff himself. Tho defendant and independent witnesses said- definitely that the car was well an«i properly lighted. In any event, as th^ car had been driven along town it wa« highly improbable that shortly before 6 p.m. :in August the lights would not be on. There was also evidence that Burton sounded the horn on the car. it was true that the der fondant did not see Mitchell, but it did not necessarily .follow that the defendant was negligent. The presence of lights in the street were very often a mixed blessing, and in addition on the evening of the accident it had been iaining shortly before and it was said that the road surfaco was patchy. In such circumstances a motorist very often did not lee a pedestrian until he got into the beam of his lights. Counsel submited that it would be difficult to have a plainer case of a pedestrian failing to take proper care. Evidence was given along these lines. Hospital records wero produced by AVilliam M. Maclaurin. Ho read excerpts in which it was stated that Mitchell 's breath smelt of alcohol on his admission to hospital on August 4 and again in March of this year after his fall. Cross-examined by Mr. Boys, the defendant denied that he had a niekliame of "Boosey" Burton. In answer to "Mr. Leicester, Burton said that after the»iaccident there was ho suggestion that he was under the influence of liquor. ' Phillip Young, a storeman, said that when he wont to the Dominion Hotel just before closing time on August 4 Mitchell was there and he appeared to be drunk and unsteady. The Court adjourned until today.