CLAIM FOR DAMAGES

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XVIII, Issue 61, 23 February 1928, Page 9

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES

ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE OF CAR

DRIVER. JURY'S VERDICT. Auckland, Feb. 22. An award of £397 to plaintiff was made by the jury in a claim for damages arising out of a street accident in Khyber Pass, on June 2-1, 1927, contested in the Supreme Court, before Mr. Justice Reed. The plaintiff was Thomas Horace Ellis, a chemical manufacturer, ot Auckland (Mr. McLiver), and the defendant was John Farrell, confectioner, of Onehunga (Mr. Sullivan). The accident occurred at 6 o’clock in the evening, when Ellis, who is 66 years of age, was crossing Khyber" Pass. As a result of being struck by defendant’s car his left leg was broken above the knee and had afterwards to be amputated, his right arm was broken above the elbow, his right leg was severely burned and he had a wound on Ins forehead and sundry bruises. He remained in hospital from June 24 to October 4, and had since been unable to follow his occupation. Mr. McLiver said that Ellis had been carried 60 feet along the street by the car. He alleged that Farrell had not sounded ms horn and had failed to keep a proper look-out. Special damages amounting to £204 Is and £lOOO general uamages were claimed. The defence was a denial of negligence on the part of the deieiidant, and allegations of contributory negligence on the plaintiff’s part. It was claimed that plaintiff had attempted to cross the street in the lace of approaching traffic without keeping a proper look-out; that he tailed to exercise reasonable care; that indulgence in intoxicating liquor made him incapable of exercising due care; and that, through physical infirmity, he was looking on the ground instead of for traffic. After a retirement of over three hours, the jury returned a verdict, by a majority of nine to three; that the accident was caused by the negligence of both parties, but that defendant was primarily responsible. His negligence caused the plaintiff to become ’‘(lustered.” and so to contribute to the accident. His Honour accepted this as a verdict for plaintiff, quoting authorities which held that the onus was on the defendant when the plaintiff's negligence was induced by the action of defendant in placing the plaintiff in a perilous position. The jury’s award was for £129 Is special damages and £250 general damages. His Honour reserved judgment, pending the hearing of an argument on points raised by Mr. Sullivan.