MOTOR ACCIDENT

Greymouth Evening Star, 18 June 1930, Page 5

MOTOR ACCIDENT

ITALIAN’S CLAIM SUCCEEDS. JURY AWARDS £598 DAMAGES After deliberating for nearly . one and a-half hours last night, the jury empanelled for the civil action heard at the Supreme Court, Greymouth, decided in favour of the plaintiff, Egidio Bearzatti, an Italian employed at the Rewanui mine, and gave judgment in his favour against Frederick Walter Wise for damages totalling £598/13/-. The case was the sequel to a motor accident. The statement of claim set out that on Saturday, June 29, 1929, when approaching the main railway station at Greymouth, plaintiff was struck by a motor car driven by defendant; that his right leg was fractured, in consequence of which he has since been totally disabled from working, and he has suffered serious and permanent injury; that defendant was driving from the direction of Mackay Street towards the railway station, and that the accident was due to his negligence, in that (1) he was driving at an excessive speed, and (2) he gave no signal or other indication that the car was approaching; that plaintiff was a miner, and his average earnings prior to the accident were not less than £4/15/6 per week. He claimed, as special damages, 41 weeks’ wages at £4/15/6 per week, amounting to £195/15/-, medical and hospital expenses £lO2 18/-, and £5OO as general damages, a total of £798/13/-. The case was heard by Mr Justice Adams and the following jury: Richard Barker "(foreman), Paul Mordaunt, Thomas Bond, Charles King Millar, George Wright, Henry Hoffman, George Gilbert, Herbert Moore, George Nimmo, Alfred Ernest ■ Kilgour, Thomas E. Johns, and Edward Roland Curtin.

Mr P. J. O’Regan, with him Mr W. J. Joyce, appeared for plaintiff, and defendant was represented by Mr C. S. Thomas.

The evidence heard before the luncheon adjournment was published in yesterday’s “Star.” Continuing his evidence after the adjournment, in reply to Mr Thomas, William Farrell stated that he had a good view of the accident. The only time he discussed the matter with Bearzatti was early in January. Just before Bearzatti was struck by the car, he turned to his left, and was then side-on to the car. He did not jump forward to avoid the car. Mr Thomas said that, according to Bearzatti, he jumped forward. Who was telling the truth, witness or Bearzatti? Witness replied that he had described what he saw. To Mr O’Regan: He did not go to assist Bearzatti after the accident, as others were there to give help. He did not know until a fortnight ago that he was to give evidence in the case. William Henderson, miner, of Rewanui, stated that he was on the riverside station, and saw the car approaching fairly quickly. He saw a man crossing the road, and was not surprised when an accident occurred. The car seemed to swerve to go between the man and the main station. The man pulled__up, and the caj- then seemed to swerve right into him. Had it kept a straight course, it would have gone between Bearzatti and the main station. The cardriver seemed to be trying to swerve behind the man. After striking him, the car went on for between 40 yards and 60 yards before stopping. Witness first knew that he was to be a witness a week ago. Witness last discussed the matter on .Monday evening. Messrs O’Regan, Joyce, and Farrell were also present. “It seems like a family party!” said Mr Thomas. He pointed out that Farrell ‘had sworn that he did not discuss the matter with Bearzatti since last January.

Henderson stated that Bearzatti did not turn half round towards the riverside station. He jumped forward towards the main station. Witness was 20 or 30 yards away from the scene of the accident. He told Bearzatti about a fortnight ago that he saw the accident, and Bearzatti told him he had better come along and give evidence. This 'closed the case for’ the plaintiff CASE FOR DEFENCE. Submitting that defendant was entitled to a nonsuit, Mr Thomas stated that neither of the grounds of negligence had been proved. There was no proof of excessive speed, and no evidence at all about the giving of signals. Mr O’Rega nsaid that evidence had been given that the car travelled 40 to 60 yards after striking Bearzatti. Reference had not been made to signals because plaintiff admitted seeing the car approaching. His Honor said he did not feel disposed to withdraw the case from the jury at that stage.

The first witness called by Mr Thomas was Frederick Walter Wise, now a storekeeper at-Kumara, who stated that,he was driving Constable Patterson and Messrs Baldwin and Rattray to Cobden, where the constable was going. The speed in Mackay Street was between 12 and 15 miles per hour, and the car was on its correct side. Witness first saw Boarzatti when he was 37 yards away. Plaintiff was in the road, with his hands up to his face, waving them about a little. He swerved the car slightly to the left to avoid Bearzatti, and decreased the speed to seven or eight miles per hour. Bearzatti apparently intended to step forward towards the main railway station. Witness thought he had passed plaintiff, but felt, a bump under the back wheel. He pulled up in about one and a-half car lengths, and immediately got out and assisted in Bearzatti’s removal to z the hospital. Had plaintiff gone on walking the way he was going, there would not have been an accident. Even if Bearzatti had stood still, the car would have missed him by four feet.To Mr Joyce: He had no speedometer on the car, and guessed the speed. The only way he could account for the accident was that Bearzatti, instead of stepping forward, stepped backward, and was struck by the rear portion of the car. He swore that the front wheel did not strike Bearzatti. The brakes were in good order, having been relined three weeks before the accident. To Mr Thomas: He gave’Bearzatti plenty of room to pass.

Peter Eugene Sweetman, grocer’s assistant, residing at Cobden, said that he cycled along Mawhera Quay to the station about 6 p.m. to deliver a parcel. He saw a man come from the riverside station, down the steps nearest the sea. When witness saw the lights of the approaching car, the man was about half-way across the road. The man stood in the middle of the road, and the car, which was moving slowly, stopped to let the man go on. As the man moved towards the main station, the car came on to go around the man. The latter then stepped backwards, and was struck by the car. If he had stood still, the cai’ would have missed him by four feet. When the impact took place the car was travelling be-

tween five and ten miles per hour, and pulled up in about two car lengths. Herbert Rattray, dentist, who was on the left of the rear seat of defendant’s car,-said that the speed in Mackay Street was between 10 and 15 miles per hour. The car slowed down before the accident, and stopped, after it. Witness saw Bearzatti stepping back towards the car. He was not more than three feet from the car when witness saw him stepping back. After the accident, the car stopped in one and a-half to two lengths. Witness got the impression that the man was dodging about, apd did not know which way to* go. The driver deviated to the left to try and avoid Bearzatti, but the latter stepped backwards and was struck by the rear of the car. To Mi’ O’Regan: He did not hear

Constable Patterson ask for witnesses. Witness refused to make any statement to the police, as he was not in charge of the car. He did not know until Monday that he was required to give evidence. Constable Patterson, who was in the front seat of the car, stated that the speed was about 15 miles per hour when approaching the station. Witness saw a man on the road, who appeared to hesitate when he noticed the car, but apparently decided to go on and stepped forward. Wise swerved to the left. Witness did not see the man again, but felt something strike the right side of the car. Had the man gone on, the car would have missed him. After the accident, the car pulled up in two to two and a-half lengths. Witness enquired for witnesses, both in the street and in the railway station, but Sweetman was the only one who came forward The speed before the accident was not excessive.

This concluded the case for the de fence.

VERDICT FOR PLAINTIFF.

The jury was addressed by counsel, and the Court adjourned at 6.30 p.m. until 7.30 P.m. His Honor then summed up, and the jury retired at 7.53 p.m. to consider the following issues, which were prepared and explained by His Honor: — , (1) Was the defendant’s car driven at an excessive speed under the circumstances? (2) If yes, was such excessive speed the real cause of the accident? (3) Was there contributory negli gence on the part of the plaintiff? (4) What damages, if any? The jury returned at 9.22 p.m. with a verdict that the speed was excessive, and was the real cause of the accident; that there was no contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff; and that he was entitled to £298/13/- special damages and £3OO general damages, a total of £598/13/-. Mr O’Regan moved for judgment, and it was entered accordingly, with costs to scale, disbursements and witnesses’ expenses to be fixed by the Registrar.

Mr O’Regan applied for an allowance for second counsel, and His Honor granted £lO/10/-. Mr Thomas asked that leave be reserved to set aside the judgment and apply for a new trial. This was granted, the application to be filed within fourteen days. No time limit was fixed for .the holding of the new trial, if the application for one is granted. The Court adjourned at 9.40 p.m.