RUN OVER BY TWO CARS

Taranaki Daily News, 13 August 1930, Page 9

RUN OVER BY TWO CARS

INJ LItED MAN CLAIMS DAMAGES. DEFENDANTS- CLAIM NON-SULTS. By Telegraph.—Press Association. Wellington, Last Night. Mark Davin, a waterside worker, proceeded in the Supreme Court to-day against Charles Brown, an engineer, and Walter Neville Norwood, a clp’k, alleging that when crossing Customhouse Quay at night in January, 1920, he had been struck down by Brown’s car and then some moments later run over by Norwood’s car as he lay in the road. Ilia thigh was broken and he was for some time in hospital. Alleging negligence and excessive speed on the part of born defendants he claimed special and general damages totalling £319 3s. Brown’s counsel formally moved after plaintiff’s case had been closed first for a non suit and next for a disjoinder. His Honour said it was a question .of two separate courses of action which had taken place with an appreciable interval between them. Plaintiff was presumably "first knocked down and then a little later run over. If the defendants were entitled to separation their application should be disposed of and the action turned into two cases.

Counsel said his grounds for a non suit were that there had'been no pi oof of negligence. Nothing had been proved other than that the side of his clients car camo in contact with a pedestiian on a dark night. “It seems to me,” said counsel, “that plaintiff cannot sue us jointly but only in the alternative not both of u.s but one or the other. The question is ultimately, who broke the man's leg?” The question of a non suit in this case was reserved. Counsel for Norwood moved for a i non-suit, submitting that there was no evidence to connect Norwood with the incident and there was no evidence of negligence by the driver of the car, whoever he was. There was further evidence of the injury being more probably duo to plaintiff’s falling aftci being struck by the first car than any othei course. His Honour said he thought there was some evidence of identity as far as Norwood was concerned. Iho second point aS to proof of negligence was an awkward matter to determine, but the third point was in a different category. Altogether the evidence in favour of Norwood was sronger than that against him. There was no proof, herefore, that the running over by Norwood actually caused the damage to plaintiff.. His Honour entered a non suit accordingly as far as Norwood was concerned. TheTiearing was adjourned until to-mor-row. s>