CLAIM FOR £797.

Press, Volume LXVII, Issue 20234, 12 May 1931, Page 7

CLAIM FOR £797.

JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT NEGLIGENCE NOT PROVED. His 'Honour Mr Justice Adams yesterday hoard a claim for gexieral «ind special : damages amounting to £ 797 10sj arising from a motor collision. Plaintiff -was James George Morrison, mental 1 hospital attendant, and defendant Was Douglas Alexander Ennis, electrical inspector. Mr W. J. Hunter and Mr W. C. Wylie appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr W, J. Gresson, with him Dr. A. L. Haslam, for the defendant. Plaintiff's Injuries.

Dr. H. L. Widdowson gave evidence to the effect that plaintiff was under his care in the Cliristchurch Hospital from November 16th to December 22nd, subsequently attending for a month for massage treatment. On admission plaintiff was unconscious, and was bleeding from the right ear, was mentally confused, was deaf in the right ear, and the right side of his body was covered with abrasions. An X-ray examination showed that the skull had been fractured. Three days later he developed facial paralysis on the right side. Since then the facial paralysis had improved, and should improve still further, if not completely disappear. He was completely deaf in the right ear, the defect being likely to be permanent. It was likely that other defects, would become permanent. Plaintiff, James George Morrison, said that when he reached the intersection the car was on him in a flash. Witness stopped his engine'and turned to the left. The car was travelling at a speed of at least 30 miles an hour. Witness • received full pay from the Mental Hospital for a month while undergoing -'treatment, subsequently being paid half wages. : Dr. A. B. O'Brien, specialist in diseases of the eye, ear, and nose, gave evidence as to plaintiff's injuries. Plaintiff was not likely to regain his hearing. IVed. James, carter, said' that when the accident occurred he was on the .pillion seat of Morrison's motor-cycle. saw defendant's car coming out of London street at a speed of about 40 to 50 miles per hour. ' McDonald Drummond, blacksmith, said ho was on his bicycle going west along London street at the time of the accident. Plaintiff and James passed him on a motor-cycle. Witness heard a crash, and the next thing that claimed his attention was a man's hat lying on the road. Ho later saw a motor-cycle and two men lying on the road iu Fitzgerald avenue.' George Smith, foreman of the motorcycle department of Adams, • Ltd., said that practically all the damage done to the cycle, was on the right-hand side and the rear.

Defendant's Case. Defendant, Douglas Alexander Ennis, electrical inspector, said that at the time of the accident.:ho; was driving his car along Wliitmore street. .As he approached the intersection he blew his horn and slackened speed. He saw a motor-cycle approaching him in London street..- He 'endeavoured-!'tb avoid a collision, but. failed-to ao bo. Witness saw tlie .men fall; off the motor-cycle, but he "did , not think"they wore hurt, as the'impact appeared'to bo a slight one. Witness went back to speak to the men, and noticing that plaintiff had blood on his face, made arrangements for the presence of a doctor and the police. When Witness realised that the motor-cycle was not going to turn- to the left he applied his brakes. Witness pulled up his. car after the impact m 15 or 1$ feet. Mr Gresson said that before defendant could be held liable he had to be found guilty of negligence, whereas such had not been proved. Both the witnesses who had given evidence for the plaintiff were interested parties. He submitted that there was never a clearer caso of a man blatantly ignoring the off-side rule than the present case. There was no.rule in Christchurch more often disregarded than the off-side ruie t and in the present instance it should be the-defendant who was proceeding for damages against the plaintiff, for it was clearly the latter who was at fault.

' Mr Hunter said-Mr Gresson, had not Diet the case against the defendant of Speeding. He . submitted that ;the defendant was negligent in' failing _ to sound his horn, in driving too quickly over' an intersection; • in. hot,"hiving his car •under proper control, > and in. lot keeping; a look-out at thc corner. ; * Issues for Jury. His Honour submitted three questions to the jury:— ;• (1) Was defendant guilty of negligence? " (2) Was plaintiff guilty of contributory negligence? (3) What damages should be awarded to plaintiff irrespective of the answers to the foregoing questions.? The jury retnrned a verdict that the defendant was not guilty of negligence. Judgment was accordingly given for defendant, with, costs according to seals.