PEDESTRIAN INJURED.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20968, 3 September 1931, Page 12

PEDESTRIAN INJURED.

LUG BROKEN IN COLLISION

DAMAGES CLAIM SUCCEEDS.

SUM OF £568 AWARDED,

[FROM OUR OWN CORRESPONDENT.] HAMILTON, Wednesday.

.An action for the recovery of £758 lis 6d damages, arising out of an accident which occurred in Victoria Street, Hamilton, on the evening of April 18, was heard before Mr. Justice Smith and a jury in the Hamilton Supreme Court to day. The plaintiff was Alfred Edwin Worrall, garage proprietor (Mr. King), and the defendant was Alfred Grice, taxi proprietor (Mr. Goldstein). The accident resulted in the plaintiff's leg being broken below the knee.

In his statement of claim, plaintiff stated he was walking across Victoria Street, and the defendant's motor-car, driven by his servant, George Grice, struck him. Plaintiff alleged that Grico drove tho car negligently and unskilfully. He claimed £l5B lis 6d for loss of wages and cost of hospital treatment, and £6OO general damages. The defence was a denial that defendant's servant, Georje Grico, had driveu unskilfully or negligently. As an alternative defence, the defendant contended that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence. The plaintiff said as he was crossing the road he saw defendant's car approach. He stood and looked toward the approaching car, and he considered he was safe. When 10 yards away the direction of tho car was changed and he was struck and knocked down. Grice was travelling slowly when witness first saw him, but he speeded up to about 25 miles an hour just before the accident. There was no application of the brakes.

A Hamilton taxi-driver, William Jamer. Sweeney, stated he saw the accident. He remarked to Worrall, "The fellow did not stop." Grice, who had then, come up, said, "It was me. I did not see him." Evidenco for the defence was given by George Alfred Grice, who said he was driving his father's car. The night was very dark and it had been raining. I£o kept to his left-hand side and when 4ft. away, he saw plaintiff. Th© accident then occurred. He ijnmediately applied the brakes and pulled the car up in 22ft. Worrall told him later that he thought ho had time to cross the iroad. Plaintiff appeiared to be walking diagonally across the road when the accident occurred.

To Mr. King: If Worrall was standing in the middle of the road, witness should ha,ve seen him when he was a chain or even two chains away. Dr. Hugh Douglas described plaintiff's injury and said the main bone in the leg had not yet completely united. He considered it would do so in a few months, and that plaintiff would suffer little or no permanent injury. The issues put to the jury were answered after a four hours' retirement as follows:—Was the defendant negligent ? Yes. Was the plaintiff negligent?— Yes. If the answer to both questions is "Yes," could the defendant by the exercise of reasonable care have avoided the collision, notwithstanding the plaintiff's negligence ? -Yes.

The damages were assessed at £568 lis 6d. Judgment was entered for plaintiff accordingly. On Mr. Goldstein's application,- time in which to apply for a new trial was extended for 14 days and a stay of execution was granted.