SUPREME COURT

Manawatu Standard, Volume LVII, Issue 204, 30 July 1937, Page 8

SUPREME COURT

MOTOR COLLISION CASE. DAMAGES CLAIMED. Sitting until 6.15 p.m., the Supreme Court yesterday afternoon, heard of the evidence in the case in which Stanley Robert Silk, a farm manager, of Foxton, claimed £202 16s special damages and £2OOO general damages from Thomas Ropoama, a slaughterman, of Shannon, as the result of a collision between cars driven by the parties at the Mangaore Stream bridge, near Shannon, on December 24, 1936. . The case was heard by His Honour the Chief Justice, Sir Michael Myers, and a jury of 12. Mr H. R. Cooper and Mr M. B. Bergin (Foxton) appeared for plaintiff, and Mr H. F. O’Leary, K.C. (Wellington), with him Mr K. N. Struthers, appeared for defendant. Immediately after the commencement of the ca6e yesterday morning an adjournment was taken, during whicn time the jury were conveyed to view the scene of the collision. Prior to the opening of the evidence in the afternoon, Mr Cooper intimated that, after consultation with Mr O’Leary, ho desired amendments to the statement of claim, bringing the special damages to a total of £292 16s. Of the £2OOO general damages, AoOO was in-respect of personal injuries and £ISOO in respect of the loss of plaintiff’s wife’s assistance in the home, she having been severely injured in the collision. Plaintiff gave evidence that his car was on the correct side of the road and, when lie saw defendant, about 30 yards awa.y, defendant was on his wrong side. Plaintiff put on his brakes and pulled as far as he could to the left. The car was almost stopped when the collision occurred, that being practically headon. Defendant was travelling considerably faster than plaintiff, whose speed was just under 30 miles an hour before he saw defendant’s car. The road was wide, having a bitumen surface. Mrs Silk, wife of plaintiff, said she remembered nothing after having entered the car. . His Honour: That is not unusual in cases where there has been concussion. Further evidence, as to her injuries preventing her doing the amount of housework she had been able to d° prior to the collision, was given by witness. . James Curran, a farmer, said he saw defendant’s car shortly before the collision. It was then on its wrong side of the road. The two cars, a.fter the collision, were on defendant’s incorrect side of the road. Before the collision defendant’s car was going “pretty fast.” That was 150 yards from the scene of the accident. W. P. Harpur, stationmaster at Shannon, stated he had been called on to render first aid, the scene of the collision being about a quarter of a mile from Shannon. Cross-examined, witness said defendant was quite normal and coherent. He said : “I am on the wrong side of the road. I am sorry, but I had to come here to avoid the other car. Mr D. Mitchell, F.R.C.S.. described the injuries suffered by plaintiff. An injured hand, which one "would doubt would stand up to hard farm work now, would become normal again. Airs Silk was severely injured. She was not vet at all fit to carry on her usual household duties. An injured knee was recovering fairly well. The developing ll ! l of an arthritic condition in the knee joint was possible. • This concluded the evidence toi plaintiff. E DEF £ NCE _ Defendant gave evidence that lie worked until noon on the day of the collision, and after lunch until about 3.30 p.m. He then had two “shandies in- an hotel. To oblige another Maori, defendant agreed to take a parcel from an hotel to a pa about three-quarters of a mile away. Approaching the bridge, defendant s car was travelling at 25 miles an hour and was on its correct side of tho road. Nearing the bridge there was a slight bend. Defendant saw a car approaching, off the bridge, on its wrong side of the road. Defendant applied his brakes and as the other did not slow down defendant turned to his incorrect side to avoid the other car. At that moment the other car turned to its correct side. A collision was then inevitable. Defendant described his injuries and said that in respect of them he had brought an action against plaintiff. , Cross-examined, defendant said he had only the two “shandies’ that Plaintiff was travelling “very fast off the bridge. „ _ . . Airs Hamuih Lang, of Levin, who at the time of the collision lived at Shannon, said she was feeding lambs and had a good view of the bridge. She heard a car (plaintiff’s) coming from Foxton. She could hear the “hum” of it. The car was going at a speed, at which she had never before seen a car cross the bridge. She had seen hundreds of cars cross it. Another car (defendant’s) was coming from Shannon, at an ordinary speed. Cross-examined, witness said she had heard the car coming from Foxton when it was about half a mile away. Ihaia Muliu, giving evidence with the assistance of an interpreter, said that to his way of thinking defendant’s car. in which he was a passenger was not travelling fast when approaching the bridge. It was on its correct side. The other car was on the same side of the road. As plaintiff’s car did not go to its correct side defendant’s car crossed there to avoid it. The collision then occurred The other car was travelling fairly Court then adjourned until 10 n.m. to-day.