Claim Disallowed

Waipukurau Press, Volume XXIV, Issue 127, 31 October 1930, Page 3

Claim Disallowed

NEGLIGENCE NOT PROVED SEQUEL TO MOTOR ACCIDENT (Per Press Association) PALMERSTON N., Last night. On September 16, 1929, a car driven by Donald William Fraser, of Dannevirke, employed by Barraud and Abraham, collided with an 11-year-old boy, Norman Bernard Pedersen, near Takapau, rendering him unconscious and apparently dead. The sequel was heard in the

Supreme Court, when Peter Olaf Pedersen, a farmer, of Takapau, pro-

ceeded against Barraud and Abraham, claiming £5OO general damages and £63 Ils 6d special damages.

The case was rather unusual in that the claim was in respect of a loss suffered through the death of the wife, due, it is alleged, to serious shock received by her as an eye-witness of the accident. Plaintiff is the grandfather of the boy w'ho was knocked down.

He was returning from School and had just left the school bus to cross the road to his grandfather’s gate when Fraser drove along from the direction opposite to that in which the bus was going. The allegations were that Fraser drove at an excessive speed, did not have proper control of the car, and did not keep a proper look out. Mrs. Pedersen became seriously ill as the result of the shock received and died in April,. 1930.

Plaintiff added that his wife performed the whole of the household duties connected with the home and farm and otherwise assisted him in his farming business. By reason of the accident he lost the society ; and services of his wife, and was ' put to hospital, medical and funeral expenses, and had to employ domestic assistance. The defence was a denial of negligence on the part of Fraser and alleged that the accident was entirely due to the negligence of the boy by running suddenly across the road from behind the bus which effectively concealed his presence from the view of Fraser, and failing to ascertain that the road was clear before running across. Defendants also denied that the illness of deceased was the result of witnessing the accident. Must Be Some Minit His Honour, Mr. Justice Reed, intimated that the case was unique, as it involved the question of remoteness of damage. There must be some limit to claims. “Suppose,”' he said, “someone is walking along the street suffering from heart disease and drops dead from shock through witnessing an accident. Could his relations claim damages?” The case, however, did not get as far as this interesting point, as a nonsuit was granted to defendants, whose counsel submitted that Fraser had nothing to indicate that the bus contained children, and the fact that it pulled up on the side of the road might well have been taken by him to be courtesy on the part of the bus driver to let him pass. Even if Fraser was only travelling at 10 miles an hour, it would have been impossible for him to have avoided striking the boy. The accident was really an inevitable one. Counsel for plaintiff contended that there was ample evidence, one witness even referring to Fraser as a roadhog. Fraser knew that the bus was stationary, and such being the case, should have known that there was a likelihood of someone stepping out from behind it. In passing a moving vehicle the position was different. As long as the car and the boy arrived on the spot at the same time there was bound to be an accident.

Counsel replied that, had the car been travelling slower, the driver of the bus would have had a second chance of warning the boy. His Honour: Nothing would have saved the boy if he came out in front of the car, even if it had been going: at 20 miles an hour. Counsel: He would have had a chance of ducking back. At 20 miles an hour the car would have been nowhere near the bus.

His Honour: I am sorry for plaintiff, but I don’t think there is any evidence of negligence on the part of the driver of the car. The real cause of the accident was the boy stepping out in front of the car, the speed of which did not effect the case. A nonsuit was granted.