£1000 DAMAGES CLAIMED

Taranaki Daily News, 22 August 1930, Page 7

£1000 DAMAGES CLAIMED

LOST HIS EYE IN COLLISION ' MOTORING ACCIDENT AT TE ROTI. ’ SUPREME COURT ACTION TAKEN. ■An action claiming £lOOO general ' damages and. £59 IDs 6(1 special damages for injuries received, in a motor collision was commenced before Mr. Jus- ’ tice Ostler yesterday by George Hunter Smart against Devina Elsie and John Aitken. The accident occurred on De- - cember 22, 1929, on the Main South Road near the Te Roti factory. The hearing will be continued to-day. Mr. ■ Alfred" Coleman supported the claim and Mr. A. K. North opposed it. The jury was Messrs C. H. 'Fyfe (foreman), H. J. Qaigar, A. J. Gibbons, K. C. Jury, L. C. Collins, J. H. Foster, S. Mitchell, Lance Freetliy, J. J. Birmingham, G. C. Neal, William Callopy, - J. W.' Pickering. It was alleged by .Smart, explained ■ Mr; Coleman, that the collision arose through the negligence of John Aitken, husband of Devina Aitken. Smart was ‘ driving his mother’s car from Hawera - to Stratford and was 300 or 400 yards south of the Te Roti factory when he ; noticed a lorry driven by Aitken prac- - tically the same distance on the other side of the factory. - Then the lorry disappeared in a dip in the road. Ao • Ginart was approaching the bend in the road he again saw the lorry coming towards him. • From then on until the impact Smart / kept the lorry continuously in view. • (Smart was travelling at from 20 to 25 • miles an hour and he did not allege that the lorry was going at an excess-' iye speed—about 30 miles an hour. The - two vehicles continued to'approach one • another, each on its correct side of the • road. ' j From Smart’s. point of view the curve - in the road was a left-hand one and . it was his duty to keep on the inside -of the curve; this he did. The road > -was level, good, wide and tar-sealed. ■ There was a etrip of gravel and sand 18 inches wide’ on Smart’s, left, at the edge of the tar-seal, and beyond that was a bank. Smart drove so that ho ■ kept to the ’eft-hand edge of.the tarred . way. On the left of the florry was about ’ seven feet of the same kind ■ of sandy gravel but it was hard and • firm and could be used by a vehicle ' with'safety. ■ THE COLLISION. When Smart sighted the lorry again after it emerged from the dip it was about 100 yards away. It was on its » left-hand side of the road, though not ■ quite an far over as it could have ’■ been. To the amazement of Smart, ’ when he got within less than 10 yards of the lorry —when there was ample room to pass and the speeds were reasonable—the lorry pulled in to its right • and -in a - flash' the accident occurred. - A "‘projecting corner of the lorry body ■-struck the car at the rear upright of - the window by the driver’s seat. The i front of the car was entirely undamaged by the initial impact. There was nothing to indicate a head-on collision. The ' point of impact was more than halfway from the front of Smart’s car. It was, largely a matter of conjecture • what happened, afterwards, said counsel, but he suggested it was a reasonable hypothesis that a'fter the first blow the • tear of the car would be knocked out a little and the front knocked in a lit- : tie towards the lorry. The front right ' mudguard of the car brushed against • the rear mudguard of the lorry. ißoth vehicles were pulled up very quickly, the lorry 21 yards' beyon<T*fhe point of impact and the car 18 yards -beyond. Something hit Smart in the face and made his nose bleed and a ' splinter of glass lodged in the right eye with the result that it had to be removed in order to save the other eye. Smart went back to the lorry and eaid to Aitken: “What the were ■ you' thinking about?”-Aitken said: “I ' did not see you coming.” Smart showed him the wheel marks on the road ■ and Aitken admitted he was to blame for. the accident. ■- Smart was a working plumber and -had just completed' his apprenticeship. He was now studying for his final examination for the Royal Sanitary Institute and found the loss of his eye greatly affected him in his studies and in his work on high buildings.in Wellington. - ■Cross-examined Smart admitted doctors had told him it would be about .12 months before his remaining eye adjusted itself properly to the new conditions. He admitted he would probably eventually return to Stratford to take charge of his father’s established business. He would not always have to climb high buildings but would be in an executive position. He had not ■yet nearly enough experience for that, ho\fever. , He denied that according to the police plan of the accident the line of his route was Straight and tending towards the centre of the road, rather than following the curve of the bitumened i surface. He recommenced work on March 17. He was earning £3 10s a ' week at the time of the accident. About June he came out of his apprenticeship ' and received £4 19s. To Mr. Coleman: He had no guarantes that he would receive an execu- i tive, position in his father’s business, ■ His. Honour: I suppose he will have j to win his spurs like everybody else. Madge Olson, school teacher, who was ( , in Smart’s car, said when she saw the , lorry she believed there would be a , collision as it seemed to be cutting the ( corner. She heard Aitken say he did , not know what had happened and that ; the must have been asleep. , ; Dr. Ernest A. Walker gave details of * the wound in Smart’s eye, whereupon j Mr, North said it would not be denied , It. was perfectly proper to remove the s bye. Continuing, the doctor said that ( in the good left eye he had a refractive error that called for muscular compensation. That meant that the eye when used extensively would be' subject to s fatigue. The error could be remedied by spectacles. He agreed with a medi- t. cal authority who assessed the loss to k a person deprived of an eye at 25 per cent. It was very dangerous in the u doctors opinion for Smart to work 7 on high buildings. ■• Other evidence for plaintiff was given by L. C. Sladden, licensed surveyor," who produced a plan of the locality, and c j Constables Pidgeon and Townsend, who „ took measurements of the locality imJnedintely after the accident. ' t