INJURY TO CHILD

Evening Post, Volume CXXIV, Issue 108, 3 November 1937, Page 14

INJURY TO CHILD

DAMAGES CLAIM

NEGLIGENCE ALLEGED

(By Telegraph—Pres. Association.)

CHRISTCHUBCH,- November 2.

The hearing of a claim for £361 ls 6d arising out of an accident on May 10 when a school bus left the road near Hawarden and struck a tree, was still incomplete when the adjournment was taken at the Supreme Court today. The plaintiffs were Elizabeth Mary Trumper, aged 10, the injured child, and her father, Angus Llewellyn Trumper.' The defendants were Hugh Millar, Hawarden, driver of-the bus, and Ecroyd's Garage Transport Company, Ltd., owners and operators of the Hawarden,Consolidated School bus under contract, with the Canterbury Education Board;

The plaintiffs alleged negligence on [the part of the driver. They stated that the child received a heavy blow on the head which gravely injured the brain so that she was uriconsciousfor three weeks. John Joyce, district inspector of vehicles, Christchurch, said that the impact must have been fairly severe as the engine of the bus was pushed right back into the cab. He could not say whether the accelerator had jammed because all the main parts were broken. If the driver's foot had jammed between the brake and the accelerator pedals he would have been able to switch off the-engine and steer the bus till it came to' a standstill or; to use the hand-brake.

Edward William Kibblewhite, gar-1 age service manager, said that in his view the lay-out of controls in the bus was excellent. It would not be possible for a foot to be caught between the brake and accelerator pedals. He had never heard of this happening. He had never known of an accelerator pedal sticking on a bus of this type. Kelynge Everest England, motor engineer. Said the bus was a flrst-class bus. It was very unlikely that the accelerator would Jam. It was practically impossible for a foot to be caught between the accelerator and brake pedals. 'If the accelerator jammed there would be no reason for the bus to leave trie road or for the driver to take his eyes off the road. "A PURE ACCIDENT." Addressing the jury, Mr. T. A. Gresson, for the defence, said that the defence contended, that the accident was.a: pure accident, and due to no negligence by the driver. If there were only an error of judgment, the defence contended, there was no negligence. It was claimed that the events leading up to the accident began with the jamming .of the accelerator, which caused Millar to glance at his teet, and this was a normal. action, not negligence. Millar had only four seconds in which to avoid an accident Alexander Hugh Millar, driver of the- bus, said he had been driving motor-vehicles for about 23 years. On May 10 he took the bus out at 7.45 a.m. on the first school trip, and returned at 830 ajn. From then till 11 a.m. he did clerical work. He was in his normal condition, and not tired. He did not remember yawning or closing his eyes in the bu*. He did not think the children could see his eyes in the mirror ot the bus. At 11.15 a.m. he ' me. the train to collect mail and parcels for delivery. It was a heavy mail, but there 'were no complaints about witness's 'work. He left the school about 3.10 pjn. with about 45 children in the bus. The roads were very ;bad in some parts. Eighty yards from the bridge he was accustomed.to lift his foot from the accelerator to let the engine brake the bus down the incline. On this occasion he noticed that the bus did.not decrease its speed as usual. He attributed, this to the accelerator sticking. He momentarily looked down at the accelerator ..and tapped it with his toe. On looking up he saw that the front wheels had mounted a bank about 18 inches high. He partially applied the' hand-brake and' at the same time the bus tilted over. As he went to put his foot on the brake pedal and tried to throw the car out of gear, the loose bucket seat slipped from .under nun, throwing him out of position to the right The bus had a severe sway on by this time. As witness fell to the right, his foot caught behind the foot brake," the bus being again .on the'road diagonally and travelling at roughly 25 to 27 miles an hour. It needed two hands on the wheel to straighten the bus. Witness steered clear of a culvert and the bus pointed towards the bridge at an angle. He knew that to pull the bus out on to the road and to cross tha bridge safely was impossible. His only alternative was to go straight for the trees. If he had gone to the left or right of the poplar tree he would have gone into the creek. In that case the bus would have gone into the creek nose first, .with a chance of all the children being killed. EFFICIENT DRIVER. Witness was ; ' asked by Mr. A. T. Donnelly, for the plaintiffs, with whom he was staying at Christchurch at the weekend before the accident which occurred on a Monday. On witness's refusing an answer, Mr. Donnelly asked if disclosing the names would compromise anyone and if it would affect a woman. Witness first denied that this was so, but s^till refused to give the names of the persons he had stayed with, and counsel asked his Honour to direct witness to answer. "It might compromise the other party," witness said several times when the question was pursued. At the same time he denied that he had spent an "unconventional weekend." George Emerson McKettrick, manager of Ecroyd's Garage, Hawarden, said Millar was ( one of the most punctual drivers the flrtn had ever had. His efficiency on the mail route was exceptional. Witness had never known him to take liquor. On the morning of the accident, at 7.30, Millar was bright, cheerful, and. just his normal self. Witness had.found that the accelerator on that type of bus was inclined to' jam and he had since altered the pedal on the bus. Dr. W. H. Bre'mrter. said it was impossible to say dogmatically that the child would recover completely or to say .dogmatically that she would not recover, but he thought her chances of complete recovery were at least 50 per cent . „ _ „_ In his address to the jury, Dr. D. W. Russell, for the defence, described the amount claimed as exorbitant He said that the jury should take into account the increasing of any sum awarded by compound interest in ten years before the chUd could legally have the use of it ' The Court adjourned.