DAMAGES CLAIM

Evening Post, Volume CXX, Issue 116, 12 November 1935, Page 12

DAMAGES CLAIM

.AWARD OF OVER £3000 INJURED AUCKLAND WOMAN (By Telegraph—Press Association.) AUCKLAND, November 11. An accident in Karangahape Road last Christmas Eve, when a motor-car charged along a crowded footpath, was recalled in a claim for damages brought before Mr. Justice Fair and a jury in the Supreme Court today. The plaintiff was Mrs.' Maria Ecclcstone, of Auckland (Mr. Goulding), who claimed £3500 general and £1073 special damages, making £4573 in all, from James Killen, farmer, of Matangi, Cambridge' (Mr. West). The defendant was in charge of the motor-car that struck Mrs. Ecclestone, and it was alleged that the accident was due to his negligence, particularly in starting the car while the gears were engaged, and in failing to apply the brakes. Among other injuries, the plaintiff claimed to have suffered severe shock, dislocation and fracture of a hip, fracture of the pelvis, and a compound fracture of a lower leg. It might still be necessary to amputate the leg. Mr. Goulding said that the plaintiff was the wife of a permanently disabled soldier. She was doing her Christmas shopping with her husband when the defendant's car suddenly started, leap- j ing and bounding along the footpath, and knocking down a number of people, among them being the plaintiff. The defendant admitted negligence, and so the case narrowed down to the question of damages, continued counsel. The plaintiff had suffered very serious injuries. Indeed, she was at least permanently partially disabled for life, and might further suffer the loss of a leg. The expenses she had incurred to date were just short of £300, and estimates went to show that a further sum of approximately £70 might be incurred before the woman's treatment was complete. That sum included amounts for artificial limbs, for assistance necessary in the home, and for medical treatment. The plaintiff was carried into court on a stretcher by constables and gave evidence as to her injuries and expenses. Mr. West contended that the present claim was out of all proportion to the injuries. The history of the claim would enable the jury to understand why the defence considered it excessive. In June last a claim was made of £2500, and a month later this was increased to £4500. Medical evidence was given for both parties. His Honour said the object of the law was to put the person who was injured back to nearly as possible in the same position financially as he was in before the accident. Pain suffered must also be taken into account. The jury returned after an hour to award £2500 general damages, £2CO for expenses already incurred, and \ £294 for probable future expenses. , By direction of his Honoui", the ! third ■ item was incorporated with the ! first, and judgment was given for £2794 general and £260 special damages, making a' total of £3054 and costs to the plaintiff. Mr. West was granted seven days in which to apply for a new trial on the ground that the damages were excessive.