INJURED ON ROAD.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVII, Issue 20642, 14 August 1930, Page 14

INJURED ON ROAD.

CLAIM AGAINST DRIVERS. PEDESTRIAN'S CASE FAILS. [IIY TELEGRAPH. —TT.ESS ASSOCIATION'.] WELLINGTON. Wednesday. A waterside worker, Mark Davin. proceeded in the Supremo Court yesterday against Sydney Charles Brown, engineer, and Walter Neville Norwood, clerk, claiming that while crossing Customhouse Quay .at night in January, 1929, he had been struck down by Brown's car arid then, some moments later, run over by Norwood's car as ho lay on the road. 3 j is thigh was broken and ho was for somo time in hospital. In alleging negligence and excessive speed on the part of both defendants, plaintiff claimed special and general damages totalling £319. Brown's counsel moved first for a nonsuit, and next for a djsjoinder. His Honor said it was a question of two separate courses of action which had taken place, with an appreciable interval between them. If defendants were entitled to separation their application should be disposed of and the action turned into two cases. Counsel said his grounds for a nonsuit, were that thero had been no proof of negligence. Nothing had been proved other than that the side of his client's car camo into contact with a pedestrian on a dark night. "It seems to me," said counsel, "that plaintiff cannot "suo us jointly, but only in alternative; not both of us, but one or other. The question is. ultimately, who broko the man's leg?" The question of a nonsuit in this caso was reserved. Counsel for Norwood also moved for a nonsuit. Ho submitted that there was no evidence to connect Norwood with the incident and that there was no evidenco of negligence by the driver of the ear, whoever he was. Ho said thero was, further, evidenco of the injury being more probably duo to plaintiffs falling after being struck by the first car than from any other clause. His Honor said he thought there was some evidence of identity as far as Norwood was concerned. The second point as to proof of negligence was an awkward matter lo determine, but the third point was in a different category altogether. The evidenco in favour of Norwood was stronger than that against him. There was no proof, therefore, that the running over by the defendant Norwood actually caused the injury to plaintiff. His Honoi entered a nonsuit accordingly as far as Norwood was concerned. The hearing was then adjourned until to-day. When the case was resumed the jury returned a verdict in favour of Brown, on the ground that negligence had not been proved against him.