£1559 DAMAGES CLAIMED

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Volume 58, Issue 171, 21 August 1929, Page 9

£1559 DAMAGES CLAIMED

*3* ■ FOR EX-P.W.D. E^IPLOYEE'S INJURIES. CASE AR1S1NG OUT OF MOTOR ACCIDENT. The case was heard before His Honour Mr Justice MacGregor and a jury of pwelve in the Napier Supreme Court this morning in which Alfred 0 Brien proceeded against George _D. Morgan and another, claimfng £1559 12s damages arising out of a motor collision. 'Mr H. B. Lusk appeared for tlie plaintiff, and Mr C. D. Cornford for the defendants. The following jury was empanclled: — Messrs C. Douglas, S. C. Jenkinson, flay-Chapman, H. S. Northe, E. Carter, C. F. Gannaway, W. W. Ferguson, G. W. McBride, A. G. Barham, P. Devlin, J. C. Scott, C. W. Hellyer. I11 opening for tho plaintiff, iUr Lusk stated that lie w-as, until tlie time uhen tlie accrJeut liappened, an employee of the Public Works Department in the capacitv of an enginedriver, receiving a salary of £6 per week. He was elaiming damages for permanent injuiies sustained in an accideiit which took place at a place known as Corkscrew Gully, on tlie Napier side of Waipawa, 011 April 9 01 last year. O11 that aftornoon, plaintiff, wlio^e duties took liim all over the Nortli Island, was riding liis motor cycle in the direction of Waipawa and when ascending the hill which led out of tlie gully previously mentioned, he noticed a motor car, being driven in a vory erratic manner, apxiroachiiig from tlie opposite direction. At the time when he first saw the car approaching, tlie plaintiff was riding at a moderate pace and as he noticed its erratic course he slackened speed and even shut off his engine, being well over 011 his eorrect side. At the point where the accident occurred the road was very heavily shingled and as was often tho case in sliingle roads, distinet trac-ks existed for veliicles travelling in either direction. The plaintiff would tell how the car eame right across the road to its wrong side and then sivung round to cross to the other side, hut in crossing struck him, inflicting terrible injuries. It was admitted that the car eventually finislied up 011 its correct side of the road, hut this was 20 or 30 yards beyond the place wliere the accident liappened. Plaintiff lay in the water table on his correct sicle of tlie road, with the motor cycle across liis knees. He was in a position from which he could not move. After the accident neither of the two men in the car caine near him, but from the position in which lie was lying he saw one of the defendants walk up and down the road twice, doing something. He was unable to say what he was doing as he could not move sufficiently to allow himself to see, but counsel suggested that what he vyas doing was obliterating the marks in the sliingle. Plaintiff was left lying on the side of the road for a period of some 15 minutes and tlien a car containing a gentleman named Prehble and his two sons arrived 011 the scene and tlie.se people at once dicl all tliey could for him and proposed taking him to the Waipukurau Hospital in their car. He could not he made comfortable in the vehicle, however, and so the two boys went down and callecl the defendants, who had remained since the accident 30 yards down the road. The defehdant Morgan drove the car in reverse to where the plaintiff was lying and he was lifted 111 for transport tb the hospital. One of the Prebble boys stood 011 the footboard'to watcli the plaintiff until they reached Waipukurau and he would tell how in starting off the car jerked into reverse and in reinedying matters Morgan caused further jerking whic-h serionsly affecfeed the plaintiff. Plaintiff was eonveyed to the Waipawa County Hospitay, where his right leg was nmputated just ahove the _ ankle and his treatment for other injuries kept liim eonfined in the institution fcr some montlis. Since the accident lie had done 110 work and was not likely to be ahle to work for some time to como. v Evidence was given hy the plaintiff, Dr. James Lewis Reed. medical superintendent of tlie Waipawa District Hospital, Herbert Langley Prebble and Balnh Anthony Prebble, completiiig the plaintiff's case. FOR THE DEFENCE. For the defence hlr Hallett stated that from the evidence of the plaintiff they could. dispense with the question of excessive speed and plaintiff admitted that the defendants were driving on the correct side of the road. The collision occurred 011 a straight pieee of road and the case was unusual in th'is respect. The defendants were returning from a visit to Waipukurau nnd when approaching the Corkscrew Gully. saw tlie plaintift approaching. It would be sliown 111 evidence that when approaching tlie plaintiff was riglit over on his wrong side of the road, but when he approached elo.se r he swung across 011 to the left-hand side. He did not swing right across to his correct side, however, for 011 his left-hand side was a beaten track some eiglit feet wide and plaintiff swung over to the outsidc edge of this track. It would be told how, just ]irior to passing the car, the plaintiff skidded 011 the sliingle and eame across to strike the right front wheel cap of the car. The defendants' car at tliis stage was well over 011 its correct side and the accident was ontirely due to tlie plaintiff skidding. A suggestion had Lcen made whicli. were it correct, would seriously affect the position of his clients in ihe matter. It was suggested tliat for 15 minutes after the accident, the defendants left the plaintiff lying on the side of tho road. This. however, was entirely inco-rreet and that it was incorrect was provcd by the action of a service driver, who passed the spot almost immediately after the accident, but did not stop. Counsel contended that this was because he realised that the plaintiff was leceiving attention at the hands of the defendants. He contended that the defendants stopped their car vy itli)n 30 vards of tlie point of the accident, altliough they were travelling downliill and eame bnck to tend tlie plaintiff's injuries. He lioped to he able to satisfy ihe jury that there was nothing suggestive of negligence _ on tho part of defendants in their actions prior to the accident nnd that the conientions of their actions afterwards were not borne out in fact. (Proceeding.)