MOTOR-CAR HITS LORRY

Taranaki Daily News, 5 December 1930, Page 13

MOTOR-CAR HITS LORRY

WOMAN PASSENGER INJURED. JURY AWARDS £605 DAMAGES. A claim for £6OO general damages and £65 Is 6d special damages was preferred by Lillian Kilgour, milliner, Hamilton, against the Ngaruawahia Borough Council, before Mr. Justice Herdman and a jury of 12 in the Supreme Court at Hamilton. The amount of the special damages was agreed upon. The statement of claim set out that on the night of January 16, 1930, plaintiff was in the back eeat of a car driven by William John Service. The car collided with a lorry owned by the Ngaruawahia Borough Council and in charge of a servant of the council, Charles Ernest Brunton. The plaintiff alleged that the collision and the resultant injuries to the plaintiff were caused by the negligence ot the defendant or its servant in permitting a lorry to remain .standing unattended in a position which was dangerous to oncoming traffic. The plaintiff stated that her injuries comprised a severe fracture of the base of the skull, concussion, laceration of the ear channel, and that she suffered severely from shock and nervous disability. She was unconscious for 4* days. Plaintiff was unable through her injuries to continue her work as a milliner, and bad been incapacitated from January 16 until April 14. Plaintiff gave evidence supporting her claim, and stated that for six weeks she was under a specialist in Auckland, where her ear was .treated. She still suffered from headaches and nervousness. The driver of the car, William John Service, said that at the time of the accident, 11 p.m.,„his speed was about 30 miles an hour. When inside the borough boundary he swerved to avoid a horse and struck the lorry. After he had passed the horse he saw a dim light o r the left hand side. There was no one about the vehicle.. Witness was positive he was keeping a good lookout and could not have seen the lorry earlier. Witness’ lights were in good order. . , . Medical evidence regarding plaintiffs injuries were given. For the defence it was claimed that the lorry was adequately lighted at the time of the collision, and that the fact that the lorry was standing on the wrong side of the - road was no offence, as the Ngaruawahia ; Borough Council had passed a by-law specifically permitting the ■ vehicle to stand in that position. Evidence for the defence was given by Charles Ernest Brunton, lorry driver, employed by the defendant council. There were two lights on the lorry at the time of the accident. He did npt have a rear light at the time, but he had since carried one. Witness considered it was more convenient and safer to have his vehicle on the'wrong side of the road. There were two bright lights showing. ■ - Other witnesses gave evidence of seeing the lights on the lorry from some distance. His Honour said the circumstances of the case were exceedingly simple. He advised the jury to concentrate their minds on the issue whether the defendant council, through its servant, was guilty of negligence. A car driver leav?n ■ Ngaruawahia for Hamilton would not expect to see an unattended vehicle on the wrong side of the road. Several witnesses said they saw the lorry lights -hen some distance a way, but they were local residents. Service, the driver of the car, said he saw only one light, and then only after he had passed the horse. After a retirement of half an hour the jury returned a verdict for plaintiff for the full amounts claimed. Judgment for plaintiff, with* costs, was entered accordingly.