SMITH v. CITY CORPORATION

Evening Star, Issue 18048, 16 August 1922, Page 8

SMITH v. CITY CORPORATION

A TRAMCAR ACCIDENT. CLAIM FOR DAMAGES. His Honor Mr Justice Hosking and a jury of four heard an action in the Supreme Court this morning in which Mary Smith sued the City Corporation for £36 3s 6d damages and £250 special damages for injuries received through alleged negligence of a tramway motorman and conductor.

Mr W. G. Hay appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr D. Ramsay for the defendants. . The plaintiff, in her statement of claim, sot out that on January T 6 last she was at the Stock Exchange tramway terminus in tho act of entering a tramcar for the_ purpose of travelling to her homo in South Dunedin, when, owing to the negligence of the defendants’ servants, the tramcar suddenly and without due warning moved forward, and she was thrown from the step to tho -ground, receiving serious bodily injury, which consisted of an impacted fracture of the thigh bone. Tho defendants, in their statement of defence, denied that plaintiff received bodily injury owing to the negligence of their servants in starting the tramcar or by any other negligence on their pint. They further said that if she received injury it was caused through her own negligence in boarding or attempting to board tho car while it was in motion.

Mr Hay, m opening the ease, said that the plaintiff was a widow sixty-eight years of age. On tho afternoon in question she was in town, and at about a quarter-past 5 sho walked to a stationary car for tho purpose of boardng it. Other people were catching the car at the time. She had her liana cn the rail and her foot on the step, when a young lady pushed in in front of her. Sho waited until the ladygot in, and then the car started, throwing her from tho, first step on to tho pavement. Sho was severely bruised, and had to be taken home in a raxi. Later she was put under tho X-rays, .when it was found that sho had sustained an impacted fracture of tho thigh. As a result of the injury she. sustained she was confined to her bed for over two months.

The plaintiff, in her evidence, said that tho car started before she could put her foot on the second stop. She suffered groat pain, and bad to be treated with hot fomentations for several days before an Xrays examination could be made. She also had to undergo massage treatment. Eor six weeks she had to be lifted in and out of bed,* It was not until the beginning of February that it was found that she had a fractured thigh hone. Sho had been able to do only light housework during tho last two weeks. She heard no bell ring at the time of the accident, and did not notice any signal given to start the car.

Cross-examined, witness said that she had her hand on the rail and her foot on the step when two young ladies pushed in ahead of her. She never saw tho conductor, fcjlio was not hurrying to get on tho car. She never told a corporation inspector, who called on her some davs after the accident, that she was Into and did not expect to catch the car, and was hurrying on. The car was stationary when she had her hand on the rail. Dr Cameron, radiologist at the hospital, and Dr Lindon gave evidence. The latter said that Mrs Smith had made a good recovery, but that she would never be the same as if tho accident had not occurred.

William Holloway said that ho saw an elderly lady, who he now knew as the plaintiff, grab tho hand rail of a stationary car and put her foot on. tho step. Witness was on the roadway at tho time. Two young women passed tho plaintiff and got into the ear. The conductor, standing on the back of the car, leaned his head out, with apparently one hand on the bell rope. He then pulled his head in. and witness at once knew that there would he an accident. Tho car went forward, and tho plaintiff, who had a small basket in ono hand, fell off the step. Ho did not hear the bell ring. There was no reason why the conductor should not have seen the plaintiff. Mr Hay; It is suggested 1 that she got on tho car when it was in motion. What do you say to that?

Witness: Absolutely "no.” He went to the plaintiff’s assistance. After the car was in motion the conductor again looked out. It did nob stop.

Cross-examined ; Ho could not account for tho conductor not seeing the plaintiff. Alexander Bell, who was in the company of the last witness at the time of the accident, said ho was quite sure the care was stationary when the plaintiff made to enter it. He never hoard the bell ring or the gong sound. He did net see the conductor. Thomas Alexander Brown said that plaintiff appeared to bo in tho act of taking her foot off ’the first step and putting it on the top step when the car moved off. He did not see the conductor. The cur was stationary at tho lime. It was a workers’ car. Cross-examined; He never admitted to anvone that tho conductor was not to blame.

Mr Ramsay said the defendant’s case was that the unfortunate occurrence was a pave accident for which tho corporation officials were not responsible. The evidence of tho conductor would be that _it was a full car, and that he kept a strict look out. Ho had a, complete view, and when, ho gave the signal l to start no one was attempting to board the car. His evidence would bo corroborated 1 by a passenger named Clayton, who would say that all was clear" When the signal was given. Mr Clayton would also say that the car had gone, about, half its length when he saw that a lady had fallen. The motonnan asked him if sho had fallen off the- car, and when assured that sho had not he proceeded on his journey. It would bo shown that it was quite a common experience for women to attempt to board- cars when in motion. It was suggested that the plaintiff must have grasped the hand rail aider the signal was given. Leslie Robert Lewis, conductor, said that just as he was about to give the starting signal he saw two young ladies jump out of the crowd to board tho car. Immediately ho saw them safely aboard he gave tho signal. Tho steps wore then clear. While ha was watching the young women ho had one hand on the bell rope and his head outside the cab of tho car. When the car actually started he had his head out. Xo one was then attempting to board it.

Cross-examined, witness said that trine was a crowd of people standing between the footpath and the car. He did not aeo the plaintiff, who must have got on to the car after it had started. Tic was quite certain that there was nobody within two or three feot of the car when ho gave tho signal. Witness did not consider that tho plaintiff had fallen from the car at at!. Ho thought that sho had made a grab at the rail after tho car bad started and had been dragged over. Dr Evans said lie thought that tho plaintiff would bo ablo to carry on her household duties in a few mouths’ time. She had made a remarkably good recovery.

Tho case was proceeding at 3.30 p.m