DAMAGES CLAIM

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22352, 25 February 1936, Page 12

DAMAGES CLAIM

INJURIES STRUCK BY TAXICAB JURY'S AWARD OF £ISOO LEGAL POINT DEFERRED Damages . totalling £ISOO wore awarded by a jury in the Supremo Court yesterday to a married woman who was knocked down and injured when a taxicab mounted the footpath i(i Day Street, Newton, in April of last year. As defendant was not driving at tho time of the accident, tho question of vicarious liability arose, and before giving liis decision Mr. Justice Blair heard legal argument on the subject of whether defendant was actually in charge of the taxi. Plaintiff was Mrs. Ellen Armstrong and defendant was Eric Jordan, taxidriver. Mr., Hampson and Sir. Brvce Hart appeared for plaintiff and Mr. Richmond for defendant. Plaintiff alleged that on April 3, 1935, as she was walking along the footpath in Day Street, a taxi proceeding from Bercsford Street into Day Street was so negligently and recklessly driven, and at such a speed, that it failed to negotiate the corner under control, and crossed the roadway of Day Street, mounting the footpath and knocking down plaintiff. Plaintiff's Injuries Plaintiff alleged that tho negligence of defendant consisted in permitting a taxi to bo driven recklessly by a .man named Jamieson, and at such an excessive speed, and out of control, while ho was in charge of it. As a result of tho accident plaintiff suffered a lacerated scalp wound, resulting in cerebral contusion, and a compound fracture of the left leg. She claimed ! that the resulting disability from the cerebral contusion would persist for many years, and also that the permanent disability from the compound fracture of the leg would mean tho complete loss of its use. The claim was for £ISOO general damages, £lsl 12s special damages, and £IOO for further medical and hospital expenses. After evidence had been heard concerning tho accident, and the nature of the injuries received by Mrs. Armstrong, His Honor said that the jury would be asked to assess the amount of damages to which plaintiff would be entitled on the assumption that defendant was liable. Contentions by Counsel Mr. Hampson said that before the accident plaintiff had been a woman with a happy life, but within 12 months her position had changed completely, and she had been acting in an irrational and impossible way. There had been a complete change in her nature, which was one of tho symptoms following after cerebral contusion, and this was about as serious and difficult a state of affairs as could be considered. The jury would have to take into consideration the effects of an injury of that sort, and the fact that it was serious in nature and damaging in the effects it might possibly have in the future. Counsel also referred to the fact that as a result of complete stiffness of the ankle, plaintiff's leg would be simply a prop, and she would be provented from doing her normal household duties. Mr. Richmond said the facts of the accident were not disputed. Defendant had not been driving tho car himself at the time of the accident, and had only intervened in the last few seconds. Assuming that he was legally liable, the jury had to deal with the question of damages. In this case they were not asked to award damages to a household, but to consider it from the point of view of plaintiff's suffering. Case For Defence The facts given by doctors in evidence showed that plaintiff would be able to go about her normal life in about 12 months, and perhaps would have headaches for a few months, continued Mr. Richmond. The jury had been asked to enter into psychological speculations about a woman's character, which Mr. Hampson said would be changed as a result of the accident. But in the case of a physical injury, the moral character returned to its normal state, and there was no medical whatever to support the contention of plaintiff's counsel. All plaintiff's worst trouble would be over 12 months. _ In his summing-up, His Honor said the jury was not only concerned with S resent damages, but also with future amages. Plaintiff might be entitled to an allowance for any future medical expenses that she might incur as the result of her injuries. Punitive damages did not exist in motor accident case* of this kind, he reminded the jury. Plaintiff had undoubtedly suffered a brain injury, which showed by headaches, bad temper and changes in nature, indicating that the contusion had not cleared away. The jury were entitled to consider the pain and disability plaintiff had suffered. The jury awarded plaintiff £1250 general damages, £lsl 12s 4jl special damages and £IOO for further medical and hospital expenses. His Honor reserved decision on the question of defendant's liability.