STRUCK BY LORRY

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22574, 12 November 1936, Page 16

STRUCK BY LORRY

TAXI-DRIVER INJURED CASE FROM WHANGAREI JURY'S VERDICT FOR £364 While attending to the engine of his motor-car on the Whangarei-Maunga-karamea main highway on the night of June 9 last, Charles Rae Burgess, a Whangarei taxi-driver, was struck by a passing motor-truck and had his right ankle seriously injured. This accident was tho subject of a claim for £570 damages heard in tho Supremo C oUl 't yesterday by Mr. Justice Fair and a jury. The plaintiff, for whom Mr. Trimmer appeared, was at the time of tho accident employed by All Black Cabs, Limited, at £4 a week. He made his claim against Milcnko Glucina, contractor, of Whangarei (Mr. West), claiming that the accident, which had partially disabled his right foot for an indefinite time, was due to the defendant's negligent driving. The defence denied negligence, and alleged contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff. Courtesy and Alleged Negligence Mr. Trimmer said that on tho night of the accident plaintiff had been engaged to take three people from Whangarei to Maungakaramea. The splashing up of water put his engine out of action, and he got out and lifted up the bonnet. While he was looking into the engine defendant's truck came along and someone called out, "Are you all right?" Burgess replied, "0.K.," and was just moving to the front of his car when the truck came 011, rolled him against his car and over the front of it. He fell in such a position that the rear wheel of the truck went over his right ankle. Counsel said that plaintiff _ complained that after he had replied he was given 110 opportunity of getting out of the way of the truck. Defendant had certainly been courteous in pulling up and calling out as he did, but he followed this by an act of negligence. Plaintiff had shown great fortitude. and had returned to work 011 September 9 against his doctor's advice. Plaintiff said that at the time of the accident he was just going to move to the front of his car because he did not think there was room for the truck to pass. The next thing he knew he was on the road in front of his car. Both ankle bones were fractured by the 'truck. Close Against Mudguard To Mr. West witness said he did not see the truck coming until it was right alongside him. He was close against the mudguard of his car. He intended to step out of the way, but did not get time. The taxi company had paid him two-thirds of his wages during the time 1 he was incapacitated. Dr. J. W. Hall, medical superintendent of tho Whangarei Hospital, said that Burgess would probably be fit for heavy work in 12 months, but it would not be advisable for him to do it. Three passengers in the plaintiff's car gave evidence. Mr. West said he had never known such a case in which tho plaintiff thanked the defendant for his courtesy in one breath and in the next accused him of negligence. What was the driver of the lorry to assume, what would any reasonable driver assume, after he had been told by plaintiff that he was all right? What elso was he to do but go on ? Dr. M. Axford gave evidence that the broken ankle had healed satisfactorily. Defendant's Evidence Defendant said he had stopped with his cab door right opposite where Burgess was standing. Burgess told him ho did not need any help. There would bo two or three feet between the truck and the taxicab. After getting Burgess' reply he put tho truck into low gear and continued right on. His explanation of the accident was that Burgess had put his foot out behind him. A passenger in the truck gave evidence for the defence. His Honor said the jury had to decide whether the defendant's conduct fell short of what was to bo expected of an ordinary prudent man. Tho allegation against him was that he drove ahead without giving plaintiff time to get out of the way. They had also to consider whether there had been negligence on plaintiff's own part in not looking after himself better. After a retirement of half an hour the jury returned to award the plaintiff £3OO general and £64 7s special damages. Subject to a motion by Mr. West for a non-suit judgment was entered accordingly with costs.