DAMAGES AWARDED

Manawatu Standard, Volume LVI, Issue 64, 13 February 1936, Page 9

DAMAGES AWARDED

JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF. COLLISION CASE. Judgment for plaintiff for a total of £123 4s 3d was given by His Honour Mr Justice Blair in the Supreme Court at Palmerston North, 1 yesterday afternoon, in the case in which Airs A. J. Tieehurst, of Ash hurst (Mr G. 1. McGregor), sought to recover £3OO general and £B2 8s 7d special damages from l A. A. Stubbs, bank clerk, of Palmerston North (Air H. R. Cooper) as the outcome of a collision which occurred at the intersection of Cook and College Streets on June 30 last betwecoi a car driven by defendant and another in which plaintiff was a passenger. Giving judgment, His Honour said, it was plain to him that the more, negligent of the two drivers, had been Foot, in whose car plaintiff was a passenger, hut His Honour had to decide whether plaintiff had established contributory negligence, on the part of defendant. Defendant had been travelling slowly, and, although the otlier drivor had been more to blnnie, de-

fendant, who had the right-hand rule operating against him, should have paid particular attention the direction from which the other car came, j However, his admission that he failed to see Foot until the latter, was 30 or 40 feet away implicated him, as His Honour had inspected the locality and was satisfied that defendant should have seen the other driver who, it could be assumed, was travelling nt some 30 miles ail hour, earlier. Defendant could not be absolved from lus part in the accident. Proceeding, His Honour said plaintiff was ail elderly person who had suffered a broken collar-hone and other slight injury. Ho would assume that she was totally incapacitated for five weeks and partly incapacitated until the end of November. Under the circumstances lie fixed at £BS the amount of general damages to be awarded. His Honour pointed out that plaintiff’s husband was a small farmer — really a farm labourer supplementing his income. Instead of being sent to the public hospital, plaintiff had been sent by her doctor to a private hosI pital—an expensive proposition. The public hospital fee would have been 1 £4 4s weekly. His Honour said he would allow £2l for five weeks on the latter basis. He would allow only £2 2s for professional atteiidance, and would also allow an amount of £lO 12s for massage, although this treatment could have been obtained by plaintiff as an inmate of the public hospital. Some of the amounts, £1 3s 3d for medicine and also that of £3 7s for board, might have been saved, but lie would grant that, making the special damages £3B 4s 3d and the total damages £123 4s 3d.