DAMAGES CLAIMED.

Waikato Times, Volume 102, Issue 17131, 18 June 1927, Page 3

DAMAGES CLAIMED.

BRIDGE ACCIDENT. PLAINTIFF AWARDED £52 11s. The case in which Miss C. I. Hayes sued Rupert Worley, borough engineer, for £ll9 19s damages as the outcome of an accident which occurred at the Hamilton East approach to the traffic bridge, was concluded before Mr Wyvern Wilson, S.M., in the Magistrate's Court at Hamilton this afternoon, when plaintiff was awarded £4O general and £l2 11s special damages. When the proceedings were resumed His Worship intimated that he thought there was a case to answer. It seemed quite impossible for plaintiff to have been found in the position she was unless defendant cut the corner. It was raining, and defendant should certainly have been keeping a vigilant look-out. Mr J. F. Strang, for defendant, made the submission that the car was travelling slowly, and when the driver realised that an accident was imminent he deflected to the right, applying the brakes. His course was not successful and he struck Miss Hayes.

Giving evidence, Mr R. Worley stated that ,he was travelling along River Road on his correct side, and slowed down to eight or nine miles as he approached the corner. As he swung round he noticed plaintiff running across a very short, distance in front. She appeared to hesitate, and defendant swerved to the right in completing the turn, hoping to avoid an accident, but plaintiff was too close and going in a diagonal direction.

The Magistrate stated that in all cases of that nature there was some evidence which was immutable. In the present case the important evidence was concerning the position of plaintiff when she fell. Estimates of that position varied. Plaintiff’s version had been told before she contemplated bringing an action. He concluded from the position in which she was picked up that she was about to step on to the footpath. Defendant had stated that he could see from 100 yards down the road, but though there was an arc lamp at the corner, he did not see plaintiff until she suddenly seemed to jump out of the darkness. He should have kept a better lookout, and he had evidently made a mistake in stating the direction of his course. To that extent defendant was guilty of negligence. Judgment was given for plaintiff, with costs and witnesses’ expenses amounting to £lO 14s.

Mr T. Lucas represented plaintiff, while Mr J. F. Strang appeared for defendant.