AWARDED £l000 DAMAGES

Taranaki Daily News, 23 August 1930, Page 7

AWARDED £l000 DAMAGES

LOST HIS EYE IN COLLISION JURY’S VERDICT IN MOTOR CLAIM RESULT OF ACCIDENT AT TE ROTI The full amount claimed —£1000 general and £59 19s 6d special damages — was yesterday awarded George Hunter Smart, plumber, Wellington, on his action in the. Supreme Court for damages against Devina Elie Aitken, owner, and John Aitken, driver of' a motor-lorry involved in a collision with Smart’s car. The accident occurred on the main road near the Te Roti dairy factory on December 22 and as a result Smart lost an eye. The jury reached it» verdict in 35 minutes. Judgment was entered by Mr. Justice Ostler against John Aitken and his wife /separately, with costs according to scale, witnesses’ expenses and dieburse-, •ments, and £l2 12s counsel's costs for the second day of hearing. On behalf of th® Aitkens Mr. A. K. North indicated he would consider moving for a new trial on the grounds that the damages awarded were excessive. When the hearing was resumed yesterday Catharine and Maisie Smart, who were in the car at the time of the collision, both said Aitken had admitted he was to blame, while George Smart, ' father the. plaintiff, said Aitken had made a similar admission the day after the operation on his son’seye. Other evidence was given by Colin Smart. ' '

CASE FOR THE DEFENCE. Opening the case: for the defence, Mr. North contended, and demonstrated with toy vehicles, that just before, the point of impact there was a definite corner. Despite what had. been said by the other side this was.. considered a dangerous corner for motorists and a warning sign had been erected by the Automobile Association. He suggested the car had lost the benefit of the camber when about 66 feet from the point of impact. On losing this benefit or “kick" at the most acute point of the road—at a place where it was necessary to keep a firm grip of the wheel in order to maintain the curving route—the car swung ■ out naturally towards the cen-. tre. of the road instead of pursuing its previous. course in accordance with the curve in the road. It was contended that the reason the people in the car thought the lorry had swung out towards them was that they themselves had- swung towards the centre of the road. I: it could be shown that the car took too wide a curve in negotiating the road then the driver was just as negligent as it had been alleged the lorry-driver was. The damage. to the. lorry and to the car tended to show that the fault was with the car. He maintained the car driver had been guilty of contributory negligence and could not recover.

DAMAGE TO SIGHT. Smart’s eye was perfectly normal, in fact, slightly above normal, said Dr. W. ■S. Beard, eye specialist, Wanganui. It had a slight refractive error that could be corrected and might not trouble him if he kept in good health. For the firsf twelve, months there would be an adjustment of vision. The highest authorities considered the loss after the absence of one eye was 30 per cent, the first year, and 20 per cent, for the rest of a man’s life. Those proportions would vary with the man’s occupation. He would be affected very little, in a managerial position after the period of adjustment. To Mr. Coleman: It would be very dangerous for.a one-eyed man to work on high scaffoldings during the first year of his loss, but his vision would adjust itself. The loss of vision would be about one-sixth.

Evidence was given and a plan produced by John S. Murray, licensed surveyor. \ Frank Muggeridge, engineer to. the Eltham County Council, said the righthand sido of the road had been repaired since December. The cant did not extend beyond the corner quite as far as it should. Anyone driving round the corner had a tendency to swing out. It was necessary to use the steering -wheel all the way round. On a properly constructed curve the cant was so. formed that the car would go round without the driver putting pressure on the wheel to turn the vehicle. On this curve it was necessary to put pressure on the wheel in order’ to keep the car in. John Aitken, the defendant, said the edge of the bitumen was broken at the time of the accident. In the summer it was his custom to cart cream in his lorry every second day. On the day of the accident he had about half a ton on the lorry.. He was travelling near the centre of the road when passing the Te Hoti factory. He was about a chain away from.the point of impact when he first saw the car; it was then in full view. The car pulled out considably from the bank. If it had not done this there would have been room for it to pass. Afterwards the two outside wheel marks of the car could be seen more plainly than those of the inside wheels. At the collision there was a slight jolt to his lorry. He stopped with two wheels off the bitumen in the water-table. Ho kept straight on, thinking there was plenty of room for the car to pass.

STATEMENTS AFTER SMASH. After, the collision the two drivers met. Smart said: “You were a bit offside, weren’t you?” Witness ignored the remark and began to trace the wheelmarks. He denied he said to the girls; “I don’t know how it happened. I must have been asleep.” The girls were a little excited. He denied that Smart said: “What the did you mean.” He had admitted to the police he was a little over the centre of the road, but not that he was entirely to blame. He had not said he appeared to be in the wrong. To Mr. Coleman: He denied telling George Smart the day after the accident that he was partly to blame. There ■was about nine feet in which Smart could havo passed easily. To His Honour: The accident occurred about 11.30 a.m. He had got up that morning at the usual time, about 5.30. To Mr. Coleman: He had had an injury to his own right eye. The sight of that eye was impaired but not entirely gone. He did not think his injured eye could have accounted: for the accident. Harold Calvert, motor-car agent, Ha-

wera, deposed to certain tests he had carried out. At 40 miles an hour, in a car of the same model as Smart’s, and at the spot at which the accident occurred, he had had no difficulty in passing the lorry. Afterwards the car and lorry were brought together to touch and the car could still pass. At-25 miles an hour there would be no difficulty in the car passing the lorry. He had also carried out braking experiments. In his opinion the indications were that the car had swung out and hit the lorry. Norman J. Grant, motor mechanic, and Leonard Hunt, traffic inspector at Hawera, related the results of tests carried out by them. The conclusion each of them arrived at was that there was a tendency for a car travelling the same way as Smart's to pull towards the centre of the road. Mr. Justice Ostler in summing up said the onus lay on Smart to prove that Aitken was negligent, that the accident was caused by the failure of Aitken to take the care a reasonable man would have taken. If Smart failed to do that the judgment should be in defendant’s favour—or if the plaintiff were negligent, or if both parties were negligent, or if plaintiff could have avoided the accident by the use of reasonable care. Hid Honour then dealt with the evidence before submitting to the jury the following questions agreed upon by the parties and which were answered in the following manner: — (1) Was the defendant negligent—(a) In failing to keep a proper look-out? — Yes. (b) In moving over suddenly to his incorrect aide of the road? —Yes. (c) In driving on his wrong side of the road?—Yes. (3) Was plaintiff himself guilty of. genee—(a) In driving at an excessive speed?.—No. (b) In driving too far over from his proper side of the road?— No. (c) In failing to blow his horn? — ■No. (d) In failing to stop his car by applying his brakes before reaching the spot where the accident occurred?—No. (e) In failing to keep a proper lookout ? —No. ■ (3) Wan plaintiff - himself guilty of contributory negligence? No. ■ ' (4) What damages, if any, should be

awarded to plaintiff? —General; £59 1,9 s I Gd; special £100«Q a *

Woods’ Great Peppermint ~ For . Coughs and Colds n er fails.