DAMAGES FOR INJURY.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXV, Issue 20105, 16 November 1928, Page 15

DAMAGES FOR INJURY.

PEDESTRIAN GRAVELY HURT.

KNOCKED DOWN BY MOTOR-CAR.

JUDGMENT GIVEN FOR £1642.

A claim arising from an accident in which n pedestrian was knocked down liy a motor-car at Avondalo was heard l>y Mr. Justice Smith and a jury in the Supreme Court yesterday. The plaintiff was Sydney John Jones, insuranco agent, of Avondalo (Mr. S. R. Mason), and tlu» defendant Thomas Myers, blacksmith, of Avondalo (Mr. Finlay). The accident happened at 6.45 on the evening of May 29 at the corner of Dael Street and tho Great North Road, Avondalo. Plaintiff alleged that defendant's car had been negligently controlled in that defendant had failed to keep a proper look-out and had swerved at an excessive speed without warning Plaintiff, who had been an inmate of hospital frojn the time of tho accident until August 3, claimed that ho had been totally incapacitated. He asked for £2642 damages, made up of £IOB loss of wages, £34 hospital expenses, and £2500 general damages. 110 alleged he was suffering from permanent total loss of hearing, permanent paralysis of muscles of the left eye, permanent partial disablement of tho right arm and other injuries and he was subject to severe headaches and noises in the head. Defendant denied tho negligenco alleged, and mado counter-allegations of contributory negligenco on plaintiff's part. Skull and Brain Injured. Dr. Mackay, house surgeon at the ! Auckland Hospital, said plaintiff was brought into the hospital unconscious, suffering from a fracture of the skull and pressure on the brain. He was in a very bad condition and was suffering from wounds and abrasions in many parts of the body. An operation was performed to remove the pressure and eventually he slowly regained a certain measure of health.

Plans of tho scene of the accident we're put in by J. C. Simmons, licensed surveyor.

Evidence as to the plaintiff's present condition was given by Dr. McCormick, who said plaintiff suffered from deafness, a permanent squint, and partial paralysis and would never be fit for anything but the lightest work. Plaintiff gave evidence of what ho remembered of the accident which happened immediately after he got out of a bus. Ho saw a car coming at a fast pace. It swung in toward him and struck him.

Mr. Finlay, outlining tho case for the defence, said two cars had been travelling along tho North Road at a reasonable pace. Mr. Myers, who was driving one of them, became aware that a motorcycle was coming from behind a bus right across in front of him. lie saw a man come from behind the bus and run in front of the motor-cycle, and in order to avoid him Myers swerved into Duel Street.

It was too late, however, for the man stumbled right into him, .threw up his arms and was struck by tho right-hand side of tho radiator. The man was in such a position that he had to be hit either by the cycle or by the car. Counsel suggested that tho plaintiff had forgotten altogether about the motor-cycle he had tried to avoid, and remembered

only the car that struck him. Taking Two Firemen to a Fire. Defendant, in his evidence, said if he had not swerved he would have struck the motor-cyclist whom he had failed to trace subsequently. Nothing he could havo done would have avoided the accident. In cross-examination, defendant said hewas driving behind a fire engine taking two members of tho brigade to a fire. Several eye-witnesses of tho accident said if Myers had not swerved as ho did he would have struck the motor-cycle. llis Honor, 111 summing up after counsel's addresses, said if the jury concluded that there was 110 negligence on the part of either plaintiff or defendant then the occurrence would have been an inevitable accident and the, defendant would not be liable.

Ifis Honor submitted the following questions to tlio jury:—Was the defendant guilty of negligence ? Was (lie plaintiff guilty of negligence? If both were negligent whose negligence, was the real cause of I lie", collision ? What damages is the plaintiff entitled to recover? The jury found that the defendant was guilty of negligence, i>ut not the plaintiff. and awarded £ISOO general damages. His Honor gave judgment for general ami special damages amounting to £1642 14s, and costs on the higher scale.