PRIVY COUNCIL CASE

Hawke's Bay Herald-Tribune, Issue 57, 23 March 1937, Page 13

PRIVY COUNCIL CASE

-Press Assooiation. )

fecord Claim for Personal Injuries

RESULT OF CAR SMASH

(By Telegrraph-

WELLIN GTON, Last Night, The largest amount of damages for personal injuries ever claimed in New Zealand, £15,150 13s 7d, is at stake in a motor collision Case which began in the Supreme Court tO'day, and beeause of the lpgal questions invblved there is a probabiiity that it wjll ultimately go to the Privy Oouncil. The plaintiffs are Sarah Ann Petherick, a married woman, and her husband, Eredericlc William Petherick, a motor assessor, both of Wellington, and the defendants are Williate Alexander Waters, engineer of Palmerston Nqrth, and the N.I.M.U. Mutual Inaurance Company, aa atatu' tory indemniiier. By agreenient the Court he&rd together the two separate ac.tiona whioh the oase oomprisesj one in which M?g. Petherick claims £ll,5f7 la 7d €KTm Waters, and the other in which her husband claims £2103 12s, £1000, and £500, in three causes of action, from Waters and the N.I.M.U. Gompany. Mr. Justice Reed is hearing the case, in whioh Mr. W. E. Leigester appears for the plaintiffs, Mr. O. C. Mazengarb represents Waters in the wife's claim and the N.I.M.U. Company in the husband 's claim, in which Mr. H. P. O 'Leary, K.C., and Mr. E. E. Tri^e appear for Waters. The statement of claim on behalf of Mra, Petherick said that ou August 28 last year ahe was a passenger in her car, which was being drivan by her husband on the main road near Waikanae in a northerly direction, while Waters was driving south. The defendant, it was alleged, ao negligently and unskilfully drove his car that it uollided with the plaintiff's car, the negligence consigting of driving at a dangeroua and excessive speed, failing to keep an adequate lookout, failing to have his car under proper control, and failing to keep as near to the left as practicable. Extensive Injuries. Aa a result of the collision, said the statement of claim, Mra. Petherick guff6red severe bodily and fcead injuries, She would auffer permanent disabHities comprising paralyais of the left aria and leg, eomplete blinduess of the left eye, and inability to use the right eye to a greater extent than to distinguish sh&dows. She would be subject to hallucinations, and remain oblivioua to her eurroundings, with a deteriorated mental condition and a generally confused state. She would require for the rest of her life the attendanee of two special nurses and constant medical attention. Her car ,it was stated, was wrecked and damaged beyond repair. She claimed £1047 la 7d special damages, including £540 for the car, and £10,500 general damages. In his statement of claim F. W. Petherick said that he had suffered injuries to his body and head, and had suffered and would continue to suffer considerable pain and disability. Aa a result of the accident he was sufferjng from deafness and could not walfe any distance without a stick. He was unable to coneentrate to the sanjo extent as previously, and was deprived substantialiy of the enjoyment of life which he would have had but fior the accident. He claimed £107 12s special damages and £2000 general damages. Por a second cause of action he repeated his previotts allegations and said that he would auffer heavy loss by reason of phyaical and iinancial disabilities beeause of tho conditiOn of his wife. He claimed for this £1000 general damages.

As a third cause of action he claimed Ihat he would be deprived of the society and services of his wife, for which he sought £500 general damages. Idability Admitted. Waters in his statement of defenoe to the flrst -claim, admitted that his car came into collision with the plaintiff'S car tnd that he was responsible for the damages caused by the collision. He admitted that Mrs Petherick would be permanently disabled, but not to the extent alleged, and he put the plaintilf to proof ia that respect. He denied that the car was damaged beyond repair. Ou the flrst cause of action in the husband 's claim Waters admitted aiso that the responsibility for the collision was with him, that the two plaintiffs were injured, and that Mrs Petherick was permanently injured, but he denied' all other allegations. He gave a general denial to allegations in the second - 'and third causes of action. insurance Company' s Positlon, When the case was brought otiginally, the N.I.M.IJ. Company was not a party, but as the statutory indenmifler it had instrueted Mr Mazeiigarb to appear for the defendant in the husband's action. On the suggestiou of the Judge and after the discussioii by counsel, the N.I.M.U. Company was iOined as a defendant in the husband's action. His Honour said it was an important case which would presumably go to the Privy Councii. He did not want it to go there in a "slOppy" way, and it was "sloppy" to have an indemniiier arguing before the Court but not being a party. Opening the "case for the plaintiffs, Mr Leicester said that the collision occurred on a siight bend in the road, the defendant 's car, travelling at about 50 miles an hour, veeiing out and striking the plaintiff's, the speed of Which was about 30 miles an hour. It was not suggested that there was any contributory negligence by Petherick. His wife had i been "paralysed, blinded, and tfcjndered f mental to the end of her days. " Evidence for plaintiff was given by four doctors atid seveu other witnesses. The case proceeds to-morrow, •