Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

MOTOR-CAR ACCIDENT

Damages For Plaintiffs A claim for dumages for injuries received in a motor accident which oeenrr«*d on the main highway loading from Ashhurst :o Feilding live >h.*ars ;igo was heard in tin l Supreme Court. Wellington. y«*st erday by Mr. .Justice Northernft. Counsel agreed that the delay in bringing tin* action had heen due t<» the death of a doctor. and th** departure of other witnesses for military service overseas. Plaintiffs wore Shukry- Alexander shopkcopor. I innnovirke, and his wife, .J‘*ssie Florence (Hive Alexander, who claimed M7IS/H/I from (he Fcilding P.acon Company. Ltd., and Edward Robert Bridge. Feildhig. a director of the company, for injuries received by plaintiffs and th'*ir two children, girls aged eight and ‘ls months, when the motor-ear in which they were proceeding from Ihinnevirke to Palmerston North was overturned through the alleged negligence of Bridge. Shukry Alexander claimed < 2 73,1.">'- special damages, and M2<Fi general damages: his wife claimed V.':i I G special damages and M.’lOo general damages: and they jointly claimed .£112’3/10 as special damages. Plaintiffs alleged that the negligence of defendant driver consisted in turning his motor vehicle* across the romp of plaintiff’s car. and failing to give any -sign or intimation of his intention to turn. The statement of defence contended that the accident was due lo the negligence and careless manner in whieh Shukry Alexander drove and managed his ear. Defendant also alleged that Shukry Alexander was coni ri bn tori ly 'negligent. Dr. «>. C. Mazengarb appeared for plaintiffs. and Mr. .1. Graham (Foilding) for dofemlanis. After hearing evidence and the snbmis*sinus of counsel, bis Honour said he had • formed the opinion that plaintiffs were entitled in recover damages as the cause of the ,ic<-ident wax defendant's manoeuvre at a road detour without giving any signal, lie would !•»'•]< ov»*r the medical reports, nml give judgment as t<» the modicum of damages to be awarded tomorrow’| morning.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DOM19440706.2.86

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Dominion, Volume 37, Issue 239, 6 July 1944, Page 6

Word count
Tapeke kupu
316

MOTOR-CAR ACCIDENT Dominion, Volume 37, Issue 239, 6 July 1944, Page 6

MOTOR-CAR ACCIDENT Dominion, Volume 37, Issue 239, 6 July 1944, Page 6

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert