STREET ACCIDENT

Evening Star, Issue 19799, 24 February 1928, Page 11

STREET ACCIDENT

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES [Pbb United Press Association.] AUCKLAND, February 23. An award of £379 to plaintiff made by tho jury in a claim for damages arising out of a street accident in Khvber Pass road on June 24, 1627, was contested in tho Supreme Court before Mr Justice Reed. The plaintiff was Thomas Horace Ellis, chemical manufacturer, of Auckland (Mr M'Livcr), and the defendant John Karroll, confectioner, of Onehunga (Mr Sullivan). Tho accident recurred at 6 o’clock in the evening, when Ellis, who is six years of ago, was crossing Khyber Pass road. As the result _of being struck by defendant’s car his leg was broken above the knee, and bad afterwards to be amputated, bis right arm was broken above the elbow, his right leg was severely burned, and he had a wound on his forehead and sundry bruises. He remained in hospital from June 24 to October 4, and had since been unable to follow his occupation. Mr M'Livcr said that Ellis had been carried 60ft along the street by tho car. He alleged that Farrell had not sounded his horn, and had failed to keep a proper lookout. Special damages amounting to £204 Is and £I,OOO general damages were claimed. 'The defence was a denial of negligence on the part of defendant, and allegations of contributory negligence on plaintiff’s part. It was claimed that plaintiff had attempted to cross the street in face of the approaching traffic without keeping a proper lookout; that he failed to exercise reasonable care; that indulgence in intoxicating liquor made him incapable of exercising due care; and that through physical infirmity he was looking on the ground instead of for traffic.

After a retirement of over throe hours tho jury leturucd a verdict by a majority of nine to three that tho accident was caused by negligence of both parties, but that defendant was primarily responsible. His negligence caused plaintiff to become “flustered,” and so to contribute i,o the accident.

His Honor accepted this as a verdict for plaintiff, quoting authorities which held that the onus was on the defendant, when the plaintiff’s negligence was induced by the action of the defendant iir placing plaintiff in a perilous position. The jury’s awaul was f or £l2O Is special damages and £250 general damages. His Honor reserved judgment pending the bearing of argument on the counts raised by Mr Sullivan.