CLAIM FOR OVER £2000.

Manawatu Standard, Volume LVII, Issue 204, 29 July 1937, Page 8

CLAIM FOR OVER £ 2OOO.

MOTOR COLLISION SEQUEL. CHRISTMAS EVE SMASH. ‘‘This case is one of a series,” s remarked His Honour the Chief Justice, Sir Michael Myers in the Supreme Court to-day at the opening of a case in which Stanley Robert Silk, farm manager, of Foxton, proceeded against Thomas Ropoama, slaughterman, of Shannon, -claiming in all £2159 as the outcome of a collision between cars driven by the parties named at the bridge crossing the Mangaore Stream on the Shannon-Foxton Road on December 24, 1936. Mr H. R .Cooper, with hint Mr M. B. Bergin (Foxton), appeared for plaintiff, and Mr H. F. O’Leary, K.C. (Wellington), with him Mr K. N.. Struthers, for defendant. Other counsel attending, because of the circumstances of '.■which an intimation was given by His Honour, were Mr M. H. Oram and Hon. W. Perry (Wellington). The following jury were empanelled : Messrs A. Bambery (foreman), W. Harris, S. Sutton, C. Powell, S. K. Moffatt, H. H. Andrew, P. T. Jamieson, A. E. Lowe, A. H. Drummond, A. M. Dale, T. Harley and G. Smith. Plaintiff, in his statement of claim, alleged -that the collision was due to the reckless and unskilful manner in which defendant’s car was being driven, particular allegations being failure to keep to the left as far as possible, driving at an excessive speed, in the circumstances, failing to stop, slow down or steer clear, failing to keep a proper look-out and losing control of the car. Plaintiff stated he had suffered concussion, severe injuries to his right wrist and left hand, and numerous cuts and extensive bruising, necessitating hospital and medical care and attention. His left hand was, and would be, partially incapacitated. Plaintiff’s wife, Mrs Kathleen Silk, had been a passenger with him and had been very severely injured and -would suffer permanent disability of her right leg and left hand. As a result, plaintiff had had to engage assistance for her and would have to continue to do so. Plaintiff stated also that he had lost, and would lose, for their married life the full services and society of his wife. Plaintiff had incurred fees for hospital and medical treatment, and travelling expenses, and his car had been totally destroyed, while he had also to engage and pay for farm assistance. Plaintiff therefore claimed as special damages £159 18s. The general damages claimed amounted to £2OOO, making, in all, £2159 18s. The defence was first a general denial. For a further defence it was alleged particularly that the collision was due to plaintiff failing to keen to the left as far as possible, driving at an excessive speed, under the circumstances, failing to keep his car under proper control, failing to keen a proper look out and failing to stop, slow down or steer clear. Counsel for plaintiff and defendant addressed the jury briefly with particular reference to a plan of the locality in which the collision occurred. Application was made for the jury to view the scene, permission being granted, His Honour observing that the case was one of a series and that it would probably aid the jury to inspect the locality, while it would also shorten the actual hearing. The Court then rose until 2 p.m., the jury in the meantime being conveyed to the scene of .the collision.