YOUNG MAN’S DEATH

Waikato Times, Volume 117, Issue 18589, 30 May 1935, Page 6

YOUNG MAN’S DEATH

CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION PROCEEDINGS BY PARENTS. HAMILTON EAST TRAGEDY. An action under the Deaths toy Accident and 'Compensation Act to determine the amount of damages, if any, should toe awarded the parents for the loss of their -son in a motor collision was brought in the Supreme Court, Hamilton, to-day, 'before Mr Justice Reed and a jury toy Montague Stanley Stott and Rose Eileen Stott against Etobett Motors, Limited, of Hamilton.

Plaintiffs, who were represented by Mr JA. L. Tomjpkins, claimed £5Ol damages. Mr W. J. King represented defendant company.

Mr Tompkins said plaintiffs’ eldest son, Montague William Stott, aged 19 years, was riding a cycle in Grey Street, Hamilton East, on the evening of January 14 when a car approaching from the rear at a high rate of speed struck his cycle and carried him some distance along the road. The motorist accelerated, disappeared into 'Cook ■Street, and had never been found despite exhaustive inquiries. Stott died of his injuries in hospital some days later. Because the defendant's car, which had been stolen toy the motorist, was involved in the accident the defendants were liable for damages under the Third Party 'Risk. The only question for the consideration of the jury was that of damages. Financial Loss.

Counsel stated that the jury was not entitled to give damages for pain and suffering as in ordinary cases, but it was entitled to give .reasonable compensation for the financial loss the parents bad suffered through their son’s death. Until last August plaintiff Stott was on relief works but he now had a job on the Fairfield Bridge contract. There were six children and deceased was the eldest son. Since 1932 he had been employed at Gadd’s grocery store, Claudelands, and at tbe time of bis death he was receiving £2 per week of which his mother was given £1 10s.

Evidence concerning the family income and the financial assistance received from her son was given by Rose Eileen Stott.

Frank Gadd, managing director of Gadd’s Stores Ltd., gave details of the terms of deceased’s employment with the firm and his prospects. Counsel agreed that it would toe satisfactory if the jury found general damages and His Hon'our apportioned them.

Mr iKing, who did not call evidence, said there was no personal negligence on the part of defendants or on the part of their employee who left the carj outside a theatre from which it was stolen. Any question of .sympathy or sentiment in the matter had to toe disregarded as the only point at issue was the pecuniary loss suffered by plaintiffs. Counsel made submissions in mitigation of damages and intimated that defendants had paid £2OO into Court, which they regarded as a ireasonablo amount.

After a short retirement the Jury found for plaintiffs for £4OO and judgment, was accordingly entered for plaintiffs with costs for that amount.