SEQUEL TO COLLISION

Greymouth Evening Star, 22 July 1943, Page 3

SEQUEL TO COLLISION

ACTION FOR DAMAGES. Before Mr. Justice Northcroft and i jury of four, in the Supreme Court j it Greymouth, yesterday, was heard ( i claim for damages as the sequel o an accident in the vicinity of Ku- j nara. Plaintiff was Ernest James . Burr, of Nelson Creek, a sawmill cm- ■ Dloyee, who proceeded against Pass- ' note Stewart, of Kumara, a farmer, ! claiming a total of £373. j The statement of claim set out that sn June 14, 1942, when defendant ' was driving a motor van, the pro- ( perty of defendant, in a westerly direction along the main highway leading from Kumara township to Kumara Junction and plaintiff was riding his motor-cycle, along the same highway in a similar direction, behind the van. defendant so negligently and unskilfully drove and . managed the van that, he brought it , into violent collision with the motor- ’ cycle. The negligence was alleged to j ‘ consist in failing to keep a proper > look-out for following traffic, turning the van across the general route of traffic without first ascertaining that there was a clear passage available, turning to the. right. without giving reasonable notice of intension to do so, and when approaching and turning into a side roadway to. his ri°'ht, failing to maintain his position to° hi’s left of the centre line till he entered the area of intersection. Plaintiff claimed he had received head injuries and damage to his clothing' and motor-cycle and had suffered great pain and been put to expense. He claimed £123 special and £250 general damages. Mr J W. Hannan appeared for plaintiff and Mr. W. D. Taylor lor defendant. ~ The following jury was empanelled- J. Guerin (foreman), T. W. Dove, A F. Twohill and A. A. Christensen. Mr. Hannan announced that defendant had admitted that he alone was responsible for the accident and that the jury’s task would be merely to assess damages. Plaintiff, in evidence, said he had been rendered unconscious by the collision and had remained in the Westland Hospital for 24 days. The injuries were very nainful and mainly to his mouth. He had some teeth extracted three months after the mishap. His best suit was so damaged as to be unusable and a new suit cost £l4/14/-. The ok. suit had cost £B/8/-. To Mi-. Taylor: He had been able , to do his work since eight weeks after the accident, but he suffered, from headaches at times. The only suit he could obtain with the material he liked was tailor-made, although the damaged suit was shopm William Edmond Reynolds, dental : surgeon, said plaintiff consulted him some weeks after the accident. Seven : front teeth were broken off m both : jaws, but the rest seemed m rather I good order, and witness had not. deemed an X-ray examination necessary. He would advise having the remainder of the upper teeth extracted to enable a plate to be made to provide a good job. , i i, Q To His Honor: The cost would be, about £l5/15/- for the complete, job. He thought he had extracted a, side tooth, but was not sure. This concluded the case. j Mr. Hannan did not elect to adI dress the jury, but Mr. Taylor did 'so. He suggested that the figuie I claimed was excessive, there having I been no disfigurement. He suggested ; i there was a measure of over-estima- | tion and that the injuries and damI age sustained di_d not warrant the I awarding of £250. I His Honor, summing up, said the. jury had to assess not merely what plaintiff’s new suit had cost him, but the loss of his former suit. No doubt he had suffered pain. His Honor was bound to say the claim of £250 tor

general damages was so extravagant as to be almost wanton. The jury had to determine what was a fair thing |to allow for the suit and for the Spain and suffering following.the in- ‘ jury to the teeth. The jury retired at 2.50 p.m. and returned within 20 minutes, with a verdict of £B/8/- for the suit and £5O general damages. His Honor entered judgment for £l6B/8/- in all, with costs to scale, witness’s expenses and disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.