EVENING PARTY.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17573, 25 June 1925, Page 7

EVENING PARTY.

A WAITRESS’S INJURIES. NEW TRIAL SOUGHT. An accident to a waitress on Pages Road. Bromley, about 1 a.in. on June 1. 11)21. after a party at St Albans, came before. Mr Justice Sin*, in the Supreme Court to-day in the form oi an application for a new trial. The waitress, Bernice Young. Rongiora, was in a taxi belonging to Mrs Millicent. Marshall, Spr e ydon, laxi proprietress. She was a member oi a party that attended a dance in a bouse at Packe Street, St Albans. They left at midnight to take one o* the party to ber home at New Brighton. In heavy rain. th.e r:r struck i tramway pole, anti Miss Young had her left huirverus fractured, the Kit sid e of her face paralysed, the base of her skull fractured, and a fracture of the optic nerve of her left eve, causing complete blindness. The car was driven by a taxi-driver, 'I hemas SB>bart, who, it vitas alleged, was Mrs Marshall’s servant or agent. Miss Young, in an action against Mrs Marshall, claimed £2OOO general damages and £IOB 3s 6d speojil damages. The jury gave a verdict for Miss Young for a total sum of £935 0s Od. Mr Twynehain, with him Mr Cuthbert. appearing for Mrs Marshall, now moved for a non-suit, for judgment for defendant, or for a. nei\ trial. M** Hunter, for Miss Young, opposed the motion. Mr Twyneham said that lie moved for a non-suit or judgment for defendant on the ground that Stobart, at the time, was not in .Mrs Marshall’s employ, and was merely on n frolic of his own. and that there was no evidence of negligence on his part, and for a new trial on the ground that the verdict was against the weight of evidence. .Stobart. who had been employed by Mrs Marshall, was engaged to take some members of the purtv to the house in Packe Street. ’While waiting outside lie accepted an invitation to join the party, and he took part in Ihe dancing. One witness stated that Stobart was invited because a man named Wilder had not attended, and because Stobart seemed a ’decent sort.” Christian names were used at the dance, except in regard to Stobart. who was called “Mr." o' r l J (* r * hall ’* manager said that Stobart s hours were from 9 a.m. to It p.n... a fact to which the jnrv'did not give sufficient weight, although ,t did not show- that if he worked later than 11 p.m. he was not Mrs Ma-. shall s servant. There was noevidence that any member of the partv, until after the accident. as kecl as to th f pr ' fe of 1,10 trip on which the accn.ient happened. Mr- Hunter said that the verdict was fi'a on i': 1 easonoble one a jury could hnd. .Stobart was engaged in the first place at least n, the ordinarv conrso nevcT",T S ' , Tlle iu, - v '"'Bl’t have belieted that ho was engaged for the "hole evening, including waitine tintHt 1 acke Street and that he was reengaged to take the party home. The evidence was that Stobart was not on a frolic of his own. Stobart himself said that he was engaged in the ordinary way that lie was working for Mra Marshall, and that he intended to account to her for the money be received lor the trip. Some time after the accident. Bailey. n member of the party, inquired as to the price of the trip! He was told by Stobart that it was £2 16s. He rang Mrs Marshall, who said that the money should be paid to her solicitor, dearly admitting that sho was .Stobart’s employer. She put m a claim for workers’ compeusat ion m respect to Stobart'* injuries in the

accident. Stobart admitted (hat he was doing twenty-five miles an hour. His own evidence disposed of the plea that ho was not negligent. He even said that it was not a reasonable speed in the circumstances. His Honor said that unless there was evidence to show that Stobart had not been acting in the ordinarv course of business, the jury was .justified in concluding that there was an implied contract, under which .the party would pay to bo taken back from the dance. It was not suggested that Stobart invited the party to go back as his guests. From the evidence as to waiting time, the jury was justified in concluding that the transaction was a simple business one. As to negligence, there was priina facie evidence that Stobart was going at an excessive speed and recklessly. That disposed cf the motion f<>r a nonsuit or judgment for defendant. As to a new trial, the jury had come to the same conclusion from the evidence as his Honor would have reached if lie had heard the case. There were no grounds for interfering with, the verdict. All the motions would he dismissed.