DAMAGES CLAIM

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXII, Issue 22259, 6 November 1935, Page 18

DAMAGES CLAIM

WOMAN'S INJURIES COLLISION BETWEEN CARS DEFENCE DENIES NEGLIGENCE A claim for damages arising from a motor accident on June 8 at the corner of Market Road, Remuera, and the Great South Rond, came before Mr. Justice Fair and a jury in the Supremo Court yesterday. The claim was brought by Mrs. Doris Mildred North, of Auckland (Mr. North), against W. Mattson, of Ellerslie, motor driver (Mr. Goldstine). Plaintiff was a passenger in a motorear travelling along Market Road, Remuera, and, according to the claim, was proceeding across the Great South Road in front of a stationary inwardbound tramcar. Defendant was driving a motor-oar along the Great South Road past the tramcar toward the city when the accident occurred. Plaintiff alleged that the accident was duo to the defendant's negligence and claimed £4OO general and £23 special damages. Defendant denied that the tramcar was stationary at the time and denied all allegations of negligence. Contentions lor PlalntlS Mr. North said the accident happened on a nasty night when the visibility was distinctly poor. It would be shown that the defendant's car shot ahead of a taxi just as a tramcar started to move and it struck the back wheel of Mr. North's car, with the result that Mrs. North was thrown heavily against the glass sido screen and severely injured. Victor Clinton North, husband of the plaintiff, and driver of one of the cars at the time of the accident, said ho Saw a stationary tram at the corner of Market Road and pulled his car up dead. He thought the motorman nodded for him to come < on. Witnoss went slowly on, and the tram started very slowly. When he got past the tram there was a crash and someone hit the back of his car. He had not seen the other car at all. His wife was thrown forward and hit the small screen on the front of the screen and it broke across her face. She was taken to hospital. Witness was cross-examined by Mr. Goldstine about proceedings taken against defendant in the Police Court which were dismissed. Taxi Driver's Evidence James Elliott, chief inspector of the Atta Taxi Company, said he had stopped just behind the tramcar. The defendant Mattson drove up alongside and as soon as the tram started he went through between witness and the tram. Witness thought Mattson accelerated too quickly for a wet nirfht, and if he had followed the tram across there would have been no accident. Further evidence was given by plaintiff, who said she had been in hospital for 11 days as a result of the accident. Medical evidence was given as to the nature of plaintiff's injuries. Mr. Goldstine said the defendant Mattson would say that Jhe did not pass the front of the tram at all. The tram slowed down and Mattson applied his brakes. He estimated that ho travelled no more than 10ft. after that or just sufficient to nose up against North's car. If that were so there was no legal liability whatever on defendant. The Defendant'! Account Defendant, describing the accident, said he had not thought that anybody would be quite so foolish as to come out in front of the trani. He moved off when be saw the tram move off. Plaintiff's car was bo more than four or five feet in front of the tram. "Witness just slid up to it and bumped it and stopped. His car would not accelerate quickly. The motorman on the tram, Burleigh Cecil, said he applied his brakes to avoid a collision with plaintiff's car which passed quite close in front of him. He could not say whether defendant's car accelerated quickly or not, but he heard it accelerate. Other witnesses said the tram had travelled some little distance before it stopped and the crash occurred. The hearing was adjourned until this morning.