SERIOUS INJURIES

Evening Post, Volume CXX, Issue 112, 7 November 1935, Page 10

SERIOUS INJURIES

OVER £2000 CLAIMED

LOWER HUTT ACCIDENT

Damages amounting to £2132 13s 6d were claimed by Roy Theodore Edser, hairdresser, of Lower Hutt, in the Supreme Court today as a result of a motor collision in which he lost a foot, had seven ribs and his spine fractured, and received a perforated lung. The collision took place on Easter Monday last on the White's Line ramp at Lower Hutt. Edser was driving a motor-cycls and side-car down the ramp in the direction of Lower Hutt when he collided near the bottom with a car driven by Violet Kells, second defendant in the action. The first defendant was Robert Kells, father of the second defendant, and owner of the car. Edser alleged that the accident was due to Miss Kells driving on the wrong side of the road. This was denied by the defendants, who alleged that Edser had failed to keep to his correct side of the road. The action came before the Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers) and a jury. Mr. W. Perry, with him Mr. R. E. Pone, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr". H. F. O'Leary, K.C., with him Mr. E. D. Blundell, for the defendants. At the time of the accident, said Mr. Perry, in his opening address Edser's mother-in-law, Mrs. Parker, was a passenger in the side-car of the motorcycle. . The plaintiff, by reason of the injuries he had sustained, was unable to give any evidence as to how the accident had occurred. Evidence on this point, however, would be given by Mrs. Parker and other witnesses. It was alleged that the plaintiff was travelling at a reasonable speed on his correct side of the road, and that Miss Kells was on the wrong side. It was admitted, said Mr. Perry, that Miss Kells at the time of the accident was not, and never had been, the holder of a driver's licence. ' Mrs. Parker, Mr. Perry continued, ■ would say she saw the motor-car before ;it came on to the ramp. Her version was that the car had takeii a wide ■ sweep round the corner at the bottom ; of the ramp, and had finished up on ' its incorrect side of the road. \ LEG JAMMED. Edser missed the front part of the * car, but his leg was jammed against 5 the running-board, and almost complete,ly amputated, said Mr. Perry. He ■ then lost control of the machine, which ran on and somersaulted at the bottom of the ramp. Edser and Mrs. Parker were thrown out. Mrs. Par- ' ker escaped with comparatively slight 5 injuries. : She was dazed after the acci- ■ dent, but when she recovered her : senses properly she looked up the ramp t and saw Miss Kells's car stationary on 1 its incorrect side of the road. Shortly 5 afterwards she saw the car on its cor--1 rect side of the road—it had appart ently been backed over. A footrest 1 of Edser's motor-cycle was found on - fhe southern side of the road near the - point of impact, and this indicated that f the plaintiff had been on his correct * side. £ "As a result of the collision," said *'Mr. Perry, "the plaintiff suffered what can only be described as frightful injuries. He has lost his right leg f above the ankle, about four inches i from the sole of the foot, his lung c was perforated, but there is no resii. dual disability; as far as the lung is i concerned that injury has cleared up. 1 He sustained seven broken ribs. He i also sustained a fractured spine, and '- at the present time—six months after * the accident—he is still wearing a spe- '" cial jacket." <t The plaintiff alleged negligence on s the part of Miss Kells in the following -• respects:—(a) Driving without passing lf the regulation tests; (b) driving at a n speed which, under the circumstances, o was dangerous; (c) failing to give warnv ing of her approach; (d) driving on the incorrect side of the road; (c) fail--3" ing to keep the car under proper cons trol, and failing to swerve and avoid k the, plaintiff; (f) failing to keep a proe per look-out. , c It was further alleged that the first d defendant, Robert Kells, was negligent in permitting Miss Kells to drive the car. . The defendants, after denying negli- , gence, alleged that the accident was , due solely to the negligence of the k f plaintiff in that he (a) failed to keep to the correct side of the road; (b) failed '! to keep a proper look-out; (c) was . travelling at an excessive speed. ? Evidence is being heard.