CLAIM FOR DAMAGES

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLVIII, Issue 136, 9 May 1928, Page 7

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES

ECHO OF COLLISION. CYCLIST’S SERIOUS INJURIES. SUPREME COURT ACTION. Before Mr Justice Ostler and a jury of 12, the hearing was commenced at the Supreme Court this morning of a case wherein Myrtle Alice Schljerike, of Palmerston North, shop assistant, proceeded against George Steel, of Palmerston North, baker, claiming the sum of £195 7s Od special and £SOO general damages for injuries received as the result of a collision between defendant’s motor van and plaintiff’s cycle. . ' Mr Ongley appeared for plaintiff and Mr O’Leary (Wellington) for defendant. The following jury was empanelled: Messrs J. H. Dixon (foreman), J. C. Broad, E. Ward, H. Calaglian, G. R. Lacey, E. Priest,. J. Addeman, A. Ferguson, G. A. Brock, O. H. Upton, R. Paris and H. J. Hitchens. The statement of claim alleged that, on May 6, 1927, defendant by his agent or servant so negligently drove his motor van in the Square that he ran down plaintiff who was travelling on the correct side of the road. Particulars of the negligence alleged were that the van was driven at an excessive spe«(d, and that the driver failed to keep a proper look out and attempted to pass plaintiff on the wrong side. As a result of the collision, plaintiff received severe injuries to her head and was an inmate of the hospital for four weeks. She still was, and would for a further period of six months, be unable to follow her occupation; wherefore she claimed £l3 7s 6d hospital and ambulance expenses, £3O 10s medical expenses, £7 10s for the damage to the cycle, £3 10s for the damage to her clothes, £l4O for loss of wages and £SOO as general damages. The statement of defence denied negligence on defendant’s part or on the part -of his servant, and assarted that the accident had been due to the negligence of plaintiff in riding her bievcie without a light or a reflector. For a further defence, if it were proved that defendant’s servant was negligent, defendant asserted that plaintiff had been guilty of conti ibutory- negligence. THE EVIDENCE. In evidence, plaintiff stated that she had been riding home from work in the evening of the accident. 1 nor to leaving her employment she had lit her cycle lamp, but it had caught on firo and had become useless. She had borrowed an electric torch and had proceeded home with this. Sue remembered nothing of the accident. To Mr O’Leary, witness stated that she had asked for her position back in August last, but had found it filled. She would have been quite willing to go back then. In November she had obtained work with another firm, but had had to give it up on her doctors advice after five or six weeks. Alice Mary Sehlierike, mother or plaintiff, deposed that, since the accident, her daughter had been very melancholy and depressed, with fits of crying. Constable Compton gave evidence that he had arrived on the scene of the accident, near the Soldiers’ Memorial, at 5.55 p.m. The girl was lying five paces from the footpath, her bicycle, which was in a twisted condition, and an electric torch being nearby. •The bicycle had a reflector on it, and from all appearances it seemed that plaintiff had been run into from behind. Tho following morning on being interviewed. the driver of the van had made a statement that he had not seen tho girl until within two feet of her. He had not pulled up until reaching his employers’ shop. Cross-examined by Mr O’Leary, witness admitted that no proceedings were taken by the police against the driver of the van. Tho vehicle had been on its correct side, and the damage to it, had been confined to the right hand light. David S. Wylie gave evidence that the girl had been admitted to the Palmerston North Hosptial in a dangerous .condition, suffering front concussion and laceration of the brain. She had made a good recovery, but later had developed symptoms commonly seen after head injuries and consisting of alterations to temperament, failure of memory, inability to concentrate and a tendency to giddiness. It was difficult to say whether these conditions would he permanent. He did not think that she would be fit to resume her usual occupation for at least 12 months. Dr. E. C. Barnett was at this stage called by Mr O’Leary. He stated that ho had examined plaintiff several days ago and had been unable to find any. organic change. He had had to take the girl’s word for her symptoms and he was of the opinion that, when the litigation was concluded, her neurasthenia would be considerably relieved. It was impossible to tell whether her condition would be permanent.

In evidence Valter Honey, a telegraph messenger, stated that he had witnessed the accident from a bicycle. The van hit the bicycle from the rear and went right over the girl; the driver was then continuing pn to his employer’s shop. The van, at the time of the collision, was going at 20 miles per hour, arid it did not»slow down after the accident. ...

Grace Evelyn Erenstrom, shop assistant, deposed that plaintiff had left her place of employment with the electric torch burning and throwing a good light. Peter G. Patton, borough traffic inspector, gave evidence that tlie .scene of the accident was well lighted,. and that, even if the driver of the van did not have his lights going, lie should have seen tlie cyclist a chain away. James Wilfred Muir, borough electrical engineer, gave corroborative evidence regarding the lights. CASE FOR DEFENCE.

This concluded plaintiff's case whereupon Mr O’Leary submitted that there was no evidence of negligence to go to tho jury. His Honour differed, but said that he would reserve the point. Frederick John Thomas Woods, the driver of the van, deposed that he had been returning to his employer’s shop from Kelvin Grove. The portion of the Square adjacent to the memorial was well lighted, and all he could see on the road in front of him on the night of the accident was the telegraph messenger. He was going at 14 to 15 miles per hour and w;as about three feet from tho kerb on his correct side. Tho first he, saw of plaintiff was when she was within a couple of feet of the right hand mudguard, her track being right across his. He had no time to stop or swerve. 1 lie bicycle was struck almost square on, and ho slowed up, but, changing Ins mind, went straight on to the shop and brought assistance back. To Mr Ongley: He thought that plaintiff was travelling faster than he. R L Campbell Aitchison. chemist, gave evidence that he had heard tho crash of the collision, and, after geetaf Woods, had gone over to where the girl was lying, finding her unconscious.

She was lying 18 feet from the gutter on the memorial side of the road. Archibald Rodgers, the previous witness’s ‘assistant, gave further evidence concerning tho girl’s position. At this stage the court adjourned for luncheon.