INJURED ARM

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22489, 5 August 1936, Page 18

INJURED ARM

STRUCK BY MOTOR-CAR MILKMAN'S CLAIM SUCCEEDS AWARD OF £294 DAMAGES The claim of Thomas Clune, a Henderson milkman (Mr. North and Mr. MitchelD, For over £'6oo damages, following a street accident, was concluded before Mr. Justice Fair and a jury in the Supreme Court yesterday. The action was brought against Miss Kdith E. Ford (Mr. West), the driver of the car involved. The accident took place in Quay Street, opposite the Ferry Buildings, on the morning of Sunday, December 1. Clune claimed that just as he was stepping out of his milk lorry he was struck by the defendant's car and received severe injuries to the left arm. Ho asked for £SOO general damages, £93 for loss of earnings, and £1.4 hospital expenses. Continuing the evidence for the plaintiff, George Brentnall, caretaker, said ho saw a milkman standing with one foot on the running board of his lorry, apparently talking to someone inside. He was still in that position when he was struck by a passing car and carried along by it. Ownership of Business Mrs. Avis Edwards, proprietress of a milk round, said Clune had been in her employ for about 16 years. Clune lived at her homo, and when lie needed money she gave it to him. Clune was not able to do all the usual work yet. Answering Mr. West, witness said sho was the sole owner of this milk business, and had paid Clune £1 a week until a couple of years ago. Opening the defence, Mr. West said there had not been one particle of evidence to show that the defendant had not been keeping a look-out. She w as entitled to pass close to an ordinary parked vehicle. JOven assuming there had been fault on the defendant's part the claim was exaggerated. Di. I. A\ . J. Johnson gave evidence that in his opinion there was now nothing wrong with the plaintiff's arm. There were no physical signs of neurasthenia, but plaintiff appeared to be vindictive. He should have been able to do full work eight weeks after the accident. In cross-examination Dr. Johnson said ho totally disagreed with the medical opinions that Clune had received a severe mental shock. He would say that Clune was entirely vindictive. Dr. Kenneth Mackenzie expressed, substantial agreement with Dr. Johnson's evidence. Defendant's Evidence Edith Evelyn Ford, the defendant, said she had had a driving licence for about three years. When she was approaching plaintiff's lorry it did not appear to have anyone in it. As she was almost opposite it a man stepped out backward suddcnlv and crashed into her left-side windshield. She pulled into the kerb and stopped. She might have stopped sooner, but she got a terrible fright. To Mr. North witness said Clune was quite nice when she visited him in hospital and his concern was for her. He showed no signs of vindictiveness. Touching on the question of damages in his summing-up. His Honor said the plaintiff had not been earning anything at the time.of the accident. If the jury decided to allow anything on that head it might be fairest to allow a lump sum. The extent of the mental injury done was a very difficult question to. decide. To succeed plaintiff had to prove that the defendant was negligent and that her negligence was the cause of the accident. After a retirement of two hours and 20 minutes the jury returned a verdict for plaintiff and awarded £l4 13s hospital expenses, £3O for loss of earnings and £250 general damages. His Honor entered judgment accordingly, with costs, and certified for £lO 10s for the second day.