CLAIM FOR INJURY.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVII, Issue 20595, 20 June 1930, Page 14

CLAIM FOR INJURY.

TENNIS BALL THROWN.

ACTION BY INSURED CLERK.

CASE IN SUPREME COURT.

[BY TELEGRAM-—OWN CORRESPONDENT.] WELLINGTON. Thursday. The question whether a shipping clerk, Leslie Henry Charles Lour, whoso' shoulder wns injured when ho threw a tennis ball last Labour Day, is entitled to relief from (ho Colonial Mutual Life Assurance Society, Limited, was at issue in a caso heard in the Supreme Court by Mr. Justico Blair to-day. Mr. J. A. Scott appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. IX R. Hoggard for the defendant society. The statement of claim set out that the plaintiff suffered bodily injury "solely and directly by accidental, violent, external, and visible means," in that on October 28, 1929, ho threw a tenuis ball and by so doing injured his shoulder.

Tho plaintiff was temporarily totally disabled from that date until March 11 of this year, for which he applied for relief from the society, claiming £9O 5s (19 weeks at £4 15s a week) and costs. For tho plaintiff, Mr. Scott said Long became insured with tho company in Juno of last year. What actually happened on Labour Day last was that the plaintiff was watching some children playing tennis on tho Clyde Quay school courts. A ball was bit out of the courts and Long picked it up and threw it back. In doing so ho injured himself. Mr. Hoggard said tho society was not concerned about tho amount of tho claim. That was small.

Evidence along the linos of his counsel a address was given by the plaintiff. 110 said ho was 41 years of age, and had always enjoyed good health. lie had played cricket, tennis and other games. Dr. A. Gillies, orthopaedic specialist at Wellington Hospital, said Long had suffered from a severe strain of his right shoulder, which could be caused by sudden tension of the muscles.

Evidence was given by Dr. Giesen for tho defence, that he knew of cases where persons had become disabled through doing ordinary natural acts without any accidental accompaniment. No further evidence was called by Mr. Hoggard. Counsel said tho paso was of considerable importance to tho society, which was organised on a mutual basis. Tho directors themselves would far rather havo settled for the amount involved, but they were unable to do so, in justice to other policy-holders.

It was conceded that tho movements made by the plaintiff in throwing the ball wero visible and violent, but it was denied that they wero either accidental or external. Jt was contended that they were not accidental, because they, were deliberate, and further, that they were not external, because tho body could not move outsido itself.

After hearing legal argument His nonor reserved his decision.