SUPREME COURT

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 287, 23 August 1918, Page 7

SUPREME COURT

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES

AN UNUSUAL ACCIDENT

In the Supreme Court yesterday, His Honour .Mr. Justice Hoiking and a jury of twelve heard the civil case of Catherine Lnwrie, wife of James lawrie, of Wellington, against; Jl. A. Godfrey, grocer, of Jiein .Street, a claim for damages.

-Mr. \V. E. Jfott-o was foreman of tho jury. Jlr. T. Ncavo appeared for tho claimant and Jlr. IF. I''. O'Lcary for the defendant.

ill the statement of claim it was set out that on May 7, 11)18, the defendant negligently drove a motor lorry at premises -\o. 1 Jlinerva Street, Wellington, and caused portion of a chimney to fall on the plaintiff, causing her serious injury. The plaintiff's claim was for .£3l) for .medical ircatmotit an I supplies in the Wellington .Hospital and for Xl7l for general damages.

for tho defence negligence on the part of iho defendant \tas denied, and contributory negligence alleged against tha plaintiff, while it was also contended that the latter had not suffered to the extent alleged as the result of tho accident.

The circumstances of the case were somewhat extraordinary. .Plaintiff, it was stated, had been engaged washing at the. premises for her married daughter, who was not in a condition to do the work herself. A clothes line was stretched across a yard and a right-of-way, down which the defendant had a right to go to obtain and bring back his motorlorry, which ho kept in a shed af. tho back of the premises where the plaint-ill' was at the. time. The lorry came into contact with tiie line, and it was alleged that this caused a portion of a chimney to fall down on to the plaintiff. Dr. Cliesen, who attended the plaintiff after sho came out of the Hospital, described her injuries, and said she would have a permanent limp. When she recovered as far as she could recover she would bo able to undertake her ordinary household duties.

Catherine Lawrie, the plaintiff, gave evidenco as to how the accident was caused. Witness was in the yard with her daughter about ti p.m., when the defendant came along in his vehicle, which it was alleged struck the clothes lines, which caused Ihe chimney to collapse, and the bricks fell upon the witness and caused the injuries. Mrs. Wallace, daughter of the plaintiff, and Geialdine Jlary Lawrie, a. younger daughter, who was' at Jlrs. Wallace's house on tho date of the accident, gave corroborative evidence. This closed the case for (lie claimant.

Jlr. O'Lcary said the damage which resulted was too remote, and tho accident was not such as a reasonable man could have anticipated. He said he was prepared to submit argument on the point. Tho ripe that was across the right-of-way was not the quo near the chimney, and he could not have known that tho striking of this rope would bring down the chimney bv the other line.

His Honour decided to reserve the point.

Jlr. O'Lcary, continuing, said that however sentimental or sympathetic they might be, that was not suflicienl; for them to give damages against the defendant. Ale would show in his defence that the defendant was not negligent, but that the accident was due to iho uegligen -e of the claimant. The defendant had the right to uso the right-of-way to get to his motor shed, and the claimant had stretched a line across this right-of-way, and this was the first time such a thing had been done. The defendant had never been warned that the obstruction existed, and tho first: he knew of it was when he struck it.

11. A. Godfrey, grocer, Jlein Street, the defendant in the case, gave evidence in support of counsel's statement. On tho day of the accident he took Ihe car out between 8.,'1tl an-J 0 a.m., and returned about (I.It) p.m. Never previous to iho day in question had ho seen a clothca line stretched across the right-of-way. Ho sold to Mrs. Wallace some clothespegs and a. rope line about eleven days before the date of tho accident. Tho line was at tho end of the-right-of-way, about Rift, from the motor shed. When ho struck the line he heard a scream, and when witness went to the spot from when-, ho heard the scream, he saw .Mrs. Lawrie on tho ground, and he nicked her up. Later ho went for the doctor, whom he brought with him, and still later he went to the Hospital for tho ambulance.

In the luncheon interval the jury were taken out lo sco the premises. William Gregory, driver, said he was living in Wallace's house on the evening of tho accident, which happened a quarter of an hour alter he got home. Ho was about to have his tea when he heard Mrs. Wallace call out, "Oh, Jlr. Gregory, my poor mother!" The voice seemed to conio from within (he house— tho kitchen. Witness said he went out of tho house by the front, and into the yard, where he saw Jlrs Lawrie lying on the ground. Jlrs. Wallace said Godfrey had pulled down the chimney on her mother. Ho helped Godfrey to pick up Jlrs. Lawrie. The wire line was attached to the chimney and to tho stable. He had never previously known a rope to bo stretched across the right-of-way. The chimney was in a shaky conditionhe had seen" it shaking in the wind, flo did not think there were any clothes on the line across the right-of-way.

Jf.abel JVrigiey, married woman, living at Newtown, said that the back yard of her premises abutted on the right-of-way, On the night of the nccident a woman's cry attracted her, and she went out to her gate in Minerva Street. Sho saw JErs. JVallaee, wjio said, "My mother, my mother!" Jlrs. Wallace- explained that her mother wns injured. Later witness went into Jlrs. Wallace's by which time the doctor was there attending to the injured woman. Sho had no interest in the case, and was indifferent to both parties. Jlrs. Wallace, when asked what had happened, said that she heard her mother scream, and ran out and found her under Ihe bricks.

Frank S. Staveley, dairyman, said ho was the owner of the premises where Hie accident occurred. The houso was let to JYaliace ami tho stable and motor shed to Godfrey. The Wallaces were, given no right to obstruct Ihe right-of-way. Sergeant CruicNiank, who made investigations ihe day after the accident, said the mark of "the ropo was on (he hood, where it apparently struck. This was on the left-hand side of the hood. This closed tho case for tho defence. The jury retired at f> p.m. and relumed at"0.31) p.m. with a verdict: in favour of the claimant, who was awarded A'llt) medical expenses and £7!t general damages. Argument on the point reserved is to be taken later.