ACCIDENT AT HORSE SALE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23106, 4 February 1937, Page 14

ACCIDENT AT HORSE SALE

RETIRED FARRIER INJURED CLAIM FOR DAMAGES UPHELD A claim for £lO9 5s 6d, arising out of an accident in Wright, Stephenson's sale yard in Maclaggan street on April 21 last year, was heard in the Magistrate's Court yesterday before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M., the plaintiff being James Hammett,"a retired farrier, who was injured when he collided with a motor truck driven by the defendant, Reuben Tregea, a carrier.— Mr A. N. Haggitt appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr E. J. Anderson for the defendant. The facts, as set out in the statement of claim, were that on April 21 last the plaintiff attended a horse sale conducted by Wright, Stephenson and Co., Ltd., at their yards at Maclaggan street. While so engaged the defendant, it was alleged, drove a motor truck into the building and ran into the plaintiff, breaking his left leg at the ankle. It was alleged that the defendant entered the building without taking any or adequate precautions to prevent injury to persons therein, failed to keep a proper lookout, failed to give any warning, failed to stop the vehicle in time to avoid colliding with the defendant, and drove at a speed that. in the circumstances, was excessive. As a result of the accident the plaintiff incurred expenses at the Hospital, and therefore claimed the sum of £34 5s 6d special damages and £75 general damages.

Evidence was given by the plaintiff, who stated that as a result of the accident he had to wear a steel frame on his leg. When the defendant took him to the Hospital he said to a house surgeon, " I am the culprit." Evidence was also given by William Cowie Anderson, George Murdoch, John Archibald M'Curdy, George Watson and Russell Arthur Mathewson. Mr Anderson said the defence was that Tregea came into the building, and while entering had to make a swing to take him up to the wool store. He stopped just before entering to allow another lorry out, and then proceeded in in second gear. He had to deviate slightly to avoid some horses tethered near the entrance. He was keeping an eye on both the horses and the people, and just when he was making for the wool store the defendant stepped in front of the vehicle. Counsel submitted that the plaintiff's own evidence showed that he did not look towards the door as he took the step which carried him in front of the lorry, and for that reason was guilty of contributory negligence. Evidence' along these lines was given by the defendant, who said his speed on entering the building was between four and five miles an hour.

The magistrate said that, in his opinion, no question of contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff could arise, as the plaintiff was not in a public thoroughfare where he would expect vehicular traffic. He was an elderly man, whose movements were slow and deliberate. Under the circumstances, the defendant should have observed the utmost circumspection in his driving. He saw a scattered group of people and it should have been obvious to him that they were not on the alert for traffic. It should, therefore, have been incumbent upon him to see that they were aware of his approach. Under the circumstances the speed of four to five miles an hour was, he considered, excessive, so that the sole responsibility for the accident was on the defendant, who must be held liable.

Judgment was given for the full amount claimed, with costs (£3), solicitor's fee (£7 10s) and witnesses' expenses (£2 13s).