OLD MAN'S DEATH

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22350, 22 February 1936, Page 16

OLD MAN'S DEATH

DAMAGES AWARDED MOTORIST'S HEART SEIZURE [from our own correspondent] HAMILTON, Friday The points at issue in a civil claim for damages heard before Mr. Justice Callan and a jury in the Hamilton Supreme Court to-day were whether a motorist of 66 years who had a heart attack and, in consequence, lost control of his car could be regarded as negligent and whether his failure to see a man on the road in front of him was due to a heart attack. The case was one in which Edith Augusta Ward, widow, and her stepdaughter, Gertrude Edith West, both of Te Awainutu, sought to recover £350 damages from James Coutts Mitchell, farmer, of Ohaupo, as the result of a fatal motor accident which occurred at Te Awamutu on May 10, 1935.

In opening the case for plaintiff Mr. King said that defendant was driving a car into Te Awamutu, and when near St. John's Anglican Church he overtook and knocked down Charles Ward, aged 82, who was wheeling a barrow on the correct side of the road. Ward, who was the first plaintiff's husband, received-injuries from which he died on June 1. Counsel contended that the accident was due to defendant's negligence, and that as his wife and stepdaughter were partially dependent on the income he derived from the sale of milk, pigs, and vegetables, they were entitled to damages on account of his death. For the defence, Mr. Strang contended that as the accident was due to a heart seizure from which defendant suffered when driving just before the collision, it could not be attributed to defendant's negligence. Defendant, counsel contended, was not responsible. Further, counsel suggested that it could not be held that a man of deceased's age was a considerable economic factor so far as his family was concerned. After much medical ovidenco had been heard on both sides, His Honor, in summing up, pointed out that the onus of proof lay on the plaintiffs The jury must consider whether defendant's statement regarding the circumstances -preceding the accident was supported by the medical evidence, which was not a complete and adequate explanation of the cause of the fatality. After a retirement of two hours, the jury returned a verdict for plaintiffs and awarded them £159.