LONDON STREET SMASH.

Waikato Times, Volume 104, Issue 17465, 27 July 1928, Page 7

LONDON STREET SMASH.

L A' A ' . ' i OMNIBUS COMPANY SUED. MARRIED WOMAN’S INJURIES. £550 DAMAGES .CLAIMED. A claim for £SOO general damages and £SO 8s lid special damages, was brought in the Hamilton Supreme Court yesterday, before His Honour Mr Justice Blair, and a jury of 12, by a married woman, named Lettice Elleanor Fenton, wife of James Fenton, labourer, Franlcton, against Buses Limited and Ronald Noel Brown, carrier, Dannevirke. The claim is by way of damages for injuries received while plaintiff was travelling .in one of company’s buses on October 15, 1927. r lhe bus collided with a lorry driven by Brown in London Street, when the side was torn out of the bus and plaintiif sustained a large wound on the right cheek, a lacerated wound on the lelt leg below the knee, causing stiffness .lo the leg; injury to the left side of tiie chest and severe shock resulting ' in the complete disorganisation of her nervous system. Plaintiff in consequence, it was alleged, was permanently injured in health. Heard No Horn. Continuing his evidence yesterday, Stuart said he heard no horn sounded by the bus. In answer to Mr. King, witness said he was not sure whether Brown gave an efficient signal of his intention to turn. The lorry commenced to turn about a length away from the centre line of the right-of-way. Had he been driving the lorry, and had he considered there was any danger, he would have stopped and allowed the bus to pass. -, In reply to, Mr Strang, witness said the lorry took an ordinary turn. Leslie Gilder Harden, Te Awamutu, also a passenger on the lorry at tJ* ,I time of the accident, said the lorry was proceeding quite slowly. He estimated that the bus was 50 yards away and the lorry was partly across the road when witness first noticed the bus. It was no injustice to the bus driver to say that the bus was travelling at 20 miles an hour- The bus altered its direction at the last moment and swerved to the right. Witness said he apprehended an accident when he saw the bus approaching without slowing down. lie did not notice 1 Brown signal his intention to turn. Mr Strang: You didn't apprehend an accident when the lorry commenced to turn? —No. Mr Strang: You would not say that Brown did not give a signal?—No.

Witness said the right-ol'-vvay was a busy one, and cars were always passing in and out. Leslie Herbert Monteith, factory band, Ngaruawahia, who was in the cab of Brown's lorry when the collision occurred, agreeVl with the other witnesses that the'lorry was proceeding very slowly prior to turning. He saw Brown give the signal lo turn. He did not hear the bus horn sounded. There was room for the bus to have passed behind the lorry. The bus did not seem to reduce its speed as it approached the lorry. In answer to Mr King, witness said Brown and he were cousins. He considered the bus was three chains away when the lorry commenced to turn, although lie admitted having told Constable Sutton earlier that it was two chains away. To Mr Gray: lie made his statement to Constable Sutton before he had actually measured the distance. Constable D. 11. Sutton, who investigated the accident for the police, gave evidence relative to measurements taken. Mr Gray: From the damage done did you gain any idea of the force of the impact? It must have been very severe. To Mr Strang, witness said MonLeith said that when the lorry started to turn, the bus was at the telegraph post, which \yas OG yards away. Brown said it was further away still. The hand-brake on the lorry was useless, Brown stating that it had burned out the night before crossing the Razorback. The turn of the lorry was an incorrect one according to the requirements of the by-law. Medical EvidenceDr. F. M. Spencer, who had attended plaintiff, detailed the nature of her injuries. She was very much overwrought and intensely nervous at the time. She was getting little sleep and was troubled with dreams of an apprehensive nature. He saw her on various occasions until February, when he again fully examined her. The injury to the nerves had left a numbness and some neuralgic pain. The wound near the knee had lost its inflammation, but the muscles of the leg were stiff and she could not even now bend it, more than 30 degrees. The normal bending was about 120. degrees. Headaches and_ sleeplessness continued. .When he again examined her in June she could not bend her knee more than at right angle. He did not anticipate a quick recovery to normal of the joint. The scar on plaintiff’s cheek was a permanent disfigurement. Witness thought her nervous state was improving, hut she still showed fear when in a crowd, starting visibly at a sudden voise- She certainly suffered mentally from this state. She was not in a neurasthenic condition, as in that case there was no organic basis, whilst in this case there was. Prior to the accident Mrs Fenton seemed quite different from what she now is. Witness did not think hex nervous system would ever completely recover. The end of the present action would certainly not result in her immediate recovery.

Dr. T. C. Fraser also described plaintiff’s injuries. The knee joint, he said, could almost be completely extended, but bending was decreased by one half. He thought plaintiff would always have some permanent injury. He considered she was suffering "from traumatic neurasthenia.- Without having examined her before the accident, it would be difficult to say if she haa been neurasthenic. Cross-examined- witness thought plaintiff could get on without a stick. Case for Bus Company. In opening for the Bus Company, Mr King endeavoured to, sheet the cause of the collision to Brown, the driver of the lorry. 'Obviously Brown failed to keep a proper look-out, and also took a quite improper turn into ihe right-of-way, while he failed to signal his intention to turn. It would be shown that while the brakes on the bus were sound, those on the lorry were quite usel6ss. Counsel assigned ibis as a,reason for Brown taking the turn he did at an obtuse angle, instead of a proper right angle turn. With the heavy weight of benzine on the. lorry ihe : vehicle, having no brakes would probably have overshot the mark had a proper 1 turn been made.

The bus driver could not have anticipated that the lorry proceeding slowly down "the opposite side of the road, was going lo turn suddenly across his track. In the circumstances it was impossible for the bus driver to have pulled to the left, and the only safe course he could adopt was to pull to the right, which he did, while applying his brakes, and in doing so, counsel contended, the bus driver had averted a very serious catastrophe. Counsel completely discounted the evidence that the bus was travelling at an excessive speed, and he pointed to the nature of the skid marks in proof of his contention.

Called by the defence, Dr. 11. Douglas said he examined plaintiff in February of this year. She could extend Ihe injured leg fully, but there was a little stiffness in the knee, and it pained if placed beyond a light angle. There would be a tendency for this stiffness to get better. The injurymight interfere slightly with her household duties if she were kneeling on the floor, scrubbing, but there was no serious permanent injury. He thought her neurasthenic -condition would improve. Alexander W. Beveridge, opthalmic surgeon, • said he had examined the condition of plaintiff’s eyes, and found an error of .focus. This condition had, he thought, always existed. Plaintiff should be wearing glasses, and the fact that she did not wear them might account for the headaches of which she complained. In answer to Mr Gray, witness said he would not say that the disorganisation of plaintiff’s nervous system was not responsible for an aggravation -of the condition of her sight. Dr. F. D. Pinfold, who was called to the accident, and first attended Mis Fenton’s injuries, said these were not serious. Plaintiff was conscious, and demanded that she. should be removed to the hospital. He examined her again in February. There was a healthy scar en the left knee. She said her sight had “gone to the pack since the accident, but that for years her sight had been failing, lie considered there was no permanent disability. There was very slight limitation of the movement of the knee, and this condition should improve. the use of a stick would have no effect on the use of the knee, but it might have an effect on the mind of the patient, by being a constant reminder ol the VGray: Do you infer that plaintiff is malingering? Small Element of Malingering. Witness, after some hesitation, said he was inclined to think there was a small element of malingering in the Ca in further answer to Mr Gray, witness said he disagreed .with Dr. Spencer and Dr. Fraser that the movement of the-knee was limited to 30 degrees in February last. He considered plaintiff would be able to carry out ordinary household duties without trouble. A normal woman would have been more cheerful than Mrs Fenton was when lie examined her in February. He did not considei plaintiff was normal before the accident, although he had had no chance of examining her. . Ray Stanley Beamish, the driver ol the bus, said he was travelling at quite a moderate speed. He saw the loiij first as it was turning into London Street. There was no other vehicle on The road. The lorry was on its correct side, with ail its wheels on the concrete and seemed to be travelling at more’than live miles an hour. When the lorry was about a chain away it was travelling at least at six miles an hour. Immediately ho saw the lorry pull over in front -of him he applied his brakes and pulled the bus o\er to the right. Had he pulled to the left, or continued straight on, the impact and damage would have been more severe. The lateral projection of the platform of the lorry beyond the cab caught the entrance to the bus, and raked out the whole side and back. The point of impact was right on the middle line of the road. Had Brown sounded his horn and signalled his intention to turn, and had he taken a proper turn, the accident would not have happened. Witness said his speed along London Street was lo miles an hour, and just prior to the 'impact had been reduced to 12 miles. He could not have done anything to have avoided the accident. He did the thing he considered best. The curve made by the lorry and that by the bus were about similar. Witness did not sound his horn as he saw no reason to do so. Brown did not sound his horn or indicate his intention to turn. Loss Than 15 Miles An Hour. Cross-examined by Mr Strang, Beamish said that his inis was travelling at under 15 miles an hour coming from Frankton on the day of the accident. Brown, lie was quite certain, gave no signal whatever to turn. He had the lorry continually under observation, and noticed it commence lo turn. Brown turned sharply and not graduallv, he added. Had the turn been a gradual one the bus and the lorry would have struck practically head on. , Further questioned, witness said that if he made a gradual turn, as shown on the plan, the accident could have been avoided. The Jlrst he saw of the bus was in London Street, by the Dairy Company’s buildings. He disagreed with witnesses who said that his bus was at Lamberton’s bakeshop when the lorry commenced its tuin across the road. Witness considered that lie was quite near the gateway of the Dairy garage when the lorry commenced lo cross the road. Tra\ oiling at 10 to 15 miles per hour, as he was on the occasion of the accident, he could have pulled Iris bus up in about cigiit yards. Mr Strang: Did you apply your brakes before you struck the lorry?— Yes.

After the impact both vehicles moved on slightly, and the impact occurred almost on the 'centre line of the road, Beamish added. He would estimate the distance the -lorry travelled after the impact would be about three yards.

In answer to further questioning, Beamish stated that his brakes were applied before the woman, passenger screamed.

Mr Gray read evidence taken from Mr Knight, a passenger in the bus. The lorry, as set out in the evidence, appeared" to be travelling at a speed of between two and three miles an hour Beamish disagreed with Knight's contention that the lorry was over ttie centre line of the street. Witness disagreed with evidence called to state that his brakes had not been applied until the impact occurred. | “In the police prosecutions' you stated that after your brakes were applied you were travelling at about 12 miles an hour?” Witness answered that by the application of his brakes the speed of the lorry was reduced to about 12 miles an hour. Mr Gray: I take it that your bus would have continued for a further 13 feet, had the collision not -occurred? Witness: I am not'quite sure of that. Conditions Not Favourable. In answer to Mr King, witness agreed that certain conditions had to be taken into consideration when the

distance in which a vehicle could be pulled up was to be considered. The conditions on the day of the accident were not favourable. Beamish was asked by his Honour to go to the -scene of the accident and step out the distance from the point at which he first noticed the lorry lo the entrance into which the lorry was turning. Silvester Mat.hicson, head mechanic employed by the Hamilton Borougn Council, questioned by Mr King, said he had inspected the brakes of both vehicles after the impact. The handbrake of the lorry, as also the foot brake, were useless, and would have no effect on a vehicle travelling at 15 miles per hour. He would not consider it safe for the lorry to be on the road. The brakes of the bus, however, were in good order. An inspection of the lorry after the accident showed that it had sustained comparatively little damage. The damage sustained by the bus would not necessarily indicate that it was tratravelling at an excessive speed. (Proceeding.)