FALL OVER A CUTTING.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1775, 14 March 1906, Page 2

FALL OVER A CUTTING.

ACTION FOR £2OO DAMAGES

THE CITY COUNCIL SUED

7 Dr McArthur, S.M., had before him in tho Court on Thursday an action for £209 damages, brought by William- Aslmian, a ; Corporation labourer, and formerly a bootmaker, of Be-kampore, and his Wife, Sarah Ashman, against the City Council.

The statement of claim set forth that, during the formation ox a road near Berhampore (Dee street) in April, 1905, a track or footpath Avhich plaintiffs and other residents of the locality AVero in the habit of using Avas obliterated or removed for a great portion of its length by the Corporation. In place; of the path, it A\ 7 as alleged that a dangerous cutting, with steep banks (lift or 12ft high) on either side of it was left. Defendants neglected to fence the bank's of the cutting or to light sxine, or to erect any notice or warning of the danger which existed, or to take any measures for the protection and salety of passers-by. It was claimed that in consequence of this alleged neglect on

the part of defendant Corporation, the plaintiff Sarah Ashman, whilst passing along the footpath or track in question, after sunset on April Bth last, and having no notice or knovded'ge of the existence of the cutting, fell over one of tho banks. Her left leg wasbroken by the fall, she was severely bruised and shaken, and suffered other injuries. In consequence she was obliged to be conveyed to the hospital, AVhere she remained until July sth, 1905. It Avas claimed that by reason of her injuries Mrs Ashman had suffered great pain, and that her leg Avas permanently shortened and weakened; also that she was for a long time unable to perform her household duties, and was still unable to do so Avitliout pain and inconvenience. OAving to the foregoing circumstances, it was alleged that tho plaintiff, William Ashman, lost tho benefit and comfort of bis wife’s society, and her assistance in the bouse for several months ; also that he was put to an expense of £1 Is for medical attendance, and £ls 16s for hospital charges, and suffered serious loss and damagemn his business. The Aviie claimed £l5O for personal injuries, and the balance of £SO Avas claimed by the husband tordamages in respect of his oavii alleged loss, and inclusive of the medical ana hospital expenses named. , Mr Gray appeared for plaintiffs and Messrs Skerrett and O’Shea for defenReviewing the case for plaintiffs, Mr Gray said that at the time of the accident Mrs Ashman could not rise alter falling, and had to lie there for some hours until assistance arrived. He contended that the accident was caused through the neglect and carelessness of th- City Council. A claim had been made on that body, but nothing bad come of it. Plaintiffs were poor people, and unable to bear tlie expense of a Supreme Court case. Otherwise, he contended, a sympathetic jury might have awarded them more than the moderate amount they were now claimj ng o Evidence in support of the claim wasgiven by plaintiffs, Dr Ewart, and others. . , For the defence, it was contended that there was no evidence that the City Council Avas under an obligation to fence or protect the cutting; that Mrs Ashman had no right of access by the track she Avas using, and that the trad? was not a right-of-way. Also, that under all the circumstances, Mrs Ashman was guilty of contributory negligence in using the track at night after the commencement of tho cutting by the Corporation. The further hearing of the case avasadjourned until the 22nd inst.