SUPREME COURT
» CLAIM FOR DAMAGES AGAINST HUTT COUNTY In Ihe Supreme Court yesterday, His Honour Mr. Justice Jlosking and a jury of four heard an action for t<sll damages, brought by Leonard Clouko aguiiul the llutt County. Mr. T. Young appeared for plaintiff and Mr. Hislop for the defendant county. The statement of claim sul forth that plaintiff was a. carrier at J/wer Ilutt, and used in his businesi a motor-lorry of which ho was -the owner. On May ]."!, llllli, while plaintiff was driving tho lorry ltiaded with furniture over the road, tho road gave way, upsetting the lorry and causing it and the furniture to be seriously damaged. The accident, plaintiff alleged, was due to the negligence of the defandant council in improperly constructing tho road and drain, in not making adequate provision for the escape of water, in employing insufficient material and in failing to maintain properly the said road and drain. Tho owner of the furniture, claiming to ba entitled to recover from plaintiff tho damage caused tho furniture, sued plaintiff in the Magistrate's Court on September 18, 1910. Tho action was hoard on JS'ovomber 14, 1910, and judgment was given against, plaintiff for t £CO and costs ,UIU 13s. Od. The judgment had been satisfied by the parties agreeing that plaintiff should pay .650, and that each party should pay Ins own costs. Plaintiff's cost? amounted to .£ll 12s. Plaintiff therefore claimed from the defendant council tho sum of .£359 12s. special damages and £M general damages. The statement o£ defence denied that tho road gave way while plaintiff was driving as alleged, his motor-lorry over it. Defendants further denied any iieghgenco in tho construction or maintenance of the road or drain, and alleged that the road was, at the tinio of the accident, snitable for all traffic whon it was being carried on with ordinary care. They also said that what look placo' in the' Magistrate's Court was not material to -the issues of the present case; that the road and drain were constructed long before defendants obtained jurisdiction over-them; that the road and drain had since been Icept in as pood Tepnir as, if not in better repair than, they were in when they came under defendants' jurisdiction; that plaintiff brought about fho accident by negligent driving, and could have »voided it through tho exorcise of reasonable care. After the case had been partly heard, it Tvas adjourned to enable 'the jury to inspect the scene of the accident'.
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DOM19170524.2.66
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 3092, 24 May 1917, Page 9
Word count
Tapeke kupu
415SUPREME COURT Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 3092, 24 May 1917, Page 9
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Dominion. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.