DAMAGES FOR BUSHMAN

Southland Times, Issue 23379, 10 December 1937, Page 8

DAMAGES FOR BUSHMAN

INJURY IN MOTOR ACCIDENT

LIABILITY ADMITTED Judgment for plaintiff for the full amount claimed, £167 4/10, of which £lO9 17/- had been paid into court, with costs £l2 9/-, was given by Mr W. H. Freeman, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday afternoon when Clarence Stanley Skeggs, a bushman of Pahia, claimed damages from Robert Lochie, a farmer of Edendale. Mr Eustace Russell appeared for the plaintiff and the defendant was represented by Mr M. M. Macdonald. It was set out in the statement of claim that on October 10, 1936, the plaintiff was a passenger in a motorcar owned and driven by his brother, David George Skeggs, and that the defendant negligently drove his car so that it collided with the car in which the plaintiff was travelling. The accident occurred on the -InvercargillRiverton main road opposite the Riverton Hospital. The plaintiff suffered serious injuries as a result, it was stated. - Mr Macdonald, for the defence, said the negligence of the defendant was admitted. General damages of £4O had been paid into the Court that morning, he said. Special damages had been paid and it was necessary- to settle only the amount of the general damages. Mr Russell said that the general damages had been raised from £25 to £lOO as plaintiff had been compelled to give up work at the saw mill where he was employed, because of an eye injury. Counsel said the damages claimed were exceedingly moderate. The plaintiff had received an injury to his hand and a cut several inches in length was giving him trouble, he said. Counsel explained that there was much swelling round the wound. EVIDENCE OF PLAINTIFF The plaintiff in evidence described the accident. He said he suffered severe injuries as a result. He said he had had no previous trouble with his arm or eyes and had had no sickness or ill-health before the accident. Since then, however, he had suffered very severe headaches which he had not had before. His left eye watered when he attempted to read and he could not read for any length of time. He left the saw mill three and a-half months ago, being unable to work because of his injured arm. To Mr Macdonald, he said he was now working on a farm. He noticed the eye trouble about a week after the accident and consulted Dr J. G. MacDonald, after having visited Dr J. A. Pottinger. He had had headaches ever since the accident. The Magistrate: Did you have any trouble with your arm before the accident? Witness: No, I was then quite fit. Dr Ernest Sydney Fossey, medical superintendent at the Riverton Hospital, said the plaintiff was admitted in a dazed condition to the hospital on October 10, 1936, and he explained the nature of the plaintiff’s injuries. The plaintiff now had a long scar- on his arm. Mr Russell: Would you say that plaintiff’s present arm trouble was the result of his injury? Witness: Certainly. Mr Macdonald: Might it be possible that through plaintiff starting work so :

soon after the accident, the healing of •die arm was delayed? Witness: Well, that is a possibility.

Is it possible that the swelling of the arm is a permanent result of the injury?—Well, no. I would say it is the result of working with an injured arm. DEFECT IN LEFT EYE Dr J. G. MacDonald said that he examined the plaintiff’s eyes and found the right eye to be normal. The left eye was not normal and could not be improved. Mr Russell: To what would you attribute the trouble of the left eye? Witness: It would probably result from concussion to the left part of the head. To Mr Macdonald, witness said a great many persons had differences of vision without knowing it. Plaintiff had not told witness what light he could read by. He found nothing to make one believe there had been any defect before the accident. It was probable, of course, that the left eye had always been abnormal. The Magistrate: And it is also possible that it had not. Mr Macdonald remarked that it was significant that when the claim was first made there was no mention of the injured eye. The claim had been amended from £25 to £lOO. Counsel contended that the £4O general damages paid into court was an adequate amount. Mr Macdonald submitted that £75 was excessive as damages for the eye disability. The swelling of the arm, he said, could be attributed to a trouble that many axemen experienced. NO SIGN OF WEAKNESS Dr J. A. Pottinger said that when he examined plaintiff he saw a long scar on his arm which had healed without any deformity. A numbness on part of the arm seemed to point to injury to a sensory nerve. There was no obvious sign of weakness in the hand in question. The plaintiff had complained of pain over his eye and witness tested his eyes. He discovered one eye was v/eaker than the other. He came to the conclusion that the wound, being where it was, could not affect the eye-ball. It would be difficult logically to connect the wound with the defective eyesight. To Mr Macdonald, witness said it was possible that plaintiff had the abnormal vision before the accident. To Mr Russell, witness said that considering that a year had elapsed since the injuries were received and that there had been no tendon hurt, the arm should be healed by now. Dr Stanley Brown said he examined the plaintiff on December 1. There was a thickening on the tendons on the back of the injured wrist. He could find no signs of the nerves being affected. Witness understood that there had been no complaint of the swelling until the plaintiff started work again. Bushmen were known to experience a swelling and a pain due to the strain on the muscles concerned. Witness also examined plaintiff’s eyes and thought it possible that the defect in the left eye was the result of the accident. The right eye was definitely defective for reading and there might be a defect in both eyes that had been there for some time. In. his opinion the arm had already recovered from the accident. “The amount of the claim seems to be very reasonable,” said the Magistrate, in giving judgment fcr the amount claimed.