£6634 Awarded

Hawke's Bay Herald-Tribune, Issue 68, 7 April 1937, Page 9

£6634 Awarded

-Presa Assoolarion.)

RECORD CLAIM MADE FOR DAMAGES Result of Car Smash Near Waikanae PARALYSIS CLAIMED

(Bv Telegrraph-

WBMJNGTON, Last NJght. Damages amonnting to £6634 12s vrere awarded in tho Bnprcme Court to-day to Sarah Ann Pethorick, o married woman, and hor hnsband, Fredsrick William Petharick, a motor assessor, both of Wellington, against William Alexander Watcrs, an engineer, of Palmerston North, and the North Islahd Motor Union Mntual Insurance Company. As a result of a collision on the rnain road near Waikanae last Angust between cars driven by PetHerick^ and Waters, Petherick and his wife claimed from Waters and the insurance company, as statutory indemnifler, sums totalling £15,150 13s 7d, the largest amount of damages ever claimed in NeW Zealand for personal injuries. The decision yesterday was a Teserved one, delivered by Mr Jnstice Eeed. . By agreement the Court heaifl together the two separate actions which the case comprisedj one in which Mrs Petherick claimed £11,547 ls 7d from Waters, and the other in which her husband claimed £2103 12s, £1000, and £500, in three causes of aetion, from Waters and the N.I.M.U. Company. Mr W. E. Leicester appeared for the plaintiffs. Mr O. C. Mazengarb represented Waters in the wife'a claim and ithe N.I.M..U Company in the husband 7S claims, in which Mr H. F. O'Leary, K.C., and Mr B. E. Tripe appeared for Waters. : That the collision, which resnlted in jthe injuries complained of, was due to ithe negligence of the defendanf was ladmitted; the only question in dispute Jwas tne quantum of damages, said the jjudgment. The wife was very seriously injured, while the perceptible physical injuries wero slight-. Mrs. Petherick s injuries consisted of a very severe fraeture of the skull, requiring a serious opetation on the brain with blood transfnsion, a fracture of the left patella, iparalysis of the left leg, arm and face, 'complete blindness in the left eye, and only vision in the right eye to the extent suificient to distinguish shadows. 'These injuries wero admitted. The permanent results wonld be paralysds, practically complete blindness. and a inental condition which was described by a prominent alienist, Dr. Russell, as "a severe dementia caused by injury to the brain." All the medical men were agreed that there was nc prospect of her inental powers agaiu becoming normal. It was admitted that the defendant was liable, as oue head of damages, to pay for her proper nursing and treatment, and for what* ever wonld keep her during her life in comfort. It was admitted that this wonld include tho provisaon of two trained nurses at a cost of £4 4s pei week and a honsekeeper at £1 2s 6d poi week. Besponsibility for the keep oi these persons was also admitted. "Mr. Mazengarb submits that £2 pei week is siffficient for this, bnt I thini that £1 per head ia more reasonable," said his Honour. "Provision for medical attendance and medicines is also admitted. I think that £1 16s per weei should be allowed for this. This makei a total of £729 *6s. Mr. Mazengarb, foi the defendant, suggests that something nnder £700 a year should be allowed. 3 think £729 per annum ls a reasonablfl amount. The difficult question then to determine is as to what is the reasonable expeetation of life for which provision should be made. On this point the medical men of necessity disagree. It is admitted that it is more or les: guesswork. Expectaacy of Flve Years. "After a careful consideration of the evidence, and bearing in mind that the damages must be assessed once for all dnd cannot be reviewed should she live longer than the medical men for the defendant estimate, I have come to.the conclusion that I shall be doing substantial justice if I allow an expectancj of life of five years from the date of this judgment. The amount nnder this head will be, therefore, the present value of £729 per annum for five years at 4 per centum, namely, £3244." Other special damages claimed which the Judge found were proved (the majority were admitted) were as follows: — Hospital expenses, £38 9s 9d; special nursing and incidental exoenses.

£223 15s 6d; medical expensCs, £113 8s; medicines, £10 11s; honsekeeper, £20 5s; keep of nurses and housekeepei and incidental requirements, £108 11s 6d; or a total, excluding pence, of £507. "A further special damage claimed is in respect of the motor-car," he continued. "The claim is for £540. It was practically totally destroyed, fhe wreckage being estimated as of the Value of about £30. This, at my suggestion, has been handed over to the defendant, leaving the value of the car at the time of its destruction to be decided, There is conflicting evidence with regard to this. Upon the evidence bef ore xne I assess its value at £450, for which amount the plaintifi! hr entitled to judgment. "I now come to the claim for general damages over and above the amount to be allowed for nursing and ©are. These, it is claimed, should be considered under the following heads: — (1) Pain and suffering; (2) loss of enjoyment of life; (3) normal expeetation of life materially shortened. The Judge' g Task "Here is a woman who has led a full and aetive life and is reduced to the position of a helpless cripple and for her life confined to her bed and blind, What damages should be awarded?" asked his Honour. "I remind myself that I musfnot attempt to give damages to thc full smvunt of I

» perfect compensation, even If that were possible, but must endeavour to take a reasonable view of the case and give what I consider, under all the circumstances, a fair compensation. In doing so I must take into consideration her pain and suffering, the deprivation of the enjoyment of so much of her life as still remains, and the shortening of her life. I must deal with this as a jury would deal with it. It is inconceivable that each head should require to be separately valued and addea , together to make th'e total compensation awarded. The misery incidental to her present position far transcends any shortening of life, the sooner heT life is terminated the better it will oe for her, the longer her life is prolonged the more she will suffer. I take all these matters into consideration and award a sum of £2000. "Judgment will be for the plaintill Sarah Ann Petherick, for the snm of £6201." Oue Oause Abandoned Mr. Petherick's claim consisted originally of three causes of action but, at the conclusion of ithe opening of the case for the dcfence, he abandoned the second of these. In his first cause of action Ihe alleged that, as a result of the collision, he suffered injuiy to his body and head and was admitted to hospital and had suffered |ind continued ^ to suffer pain and disability. ^ He detailed his injuries and deprivations as follows: — (1) That he was suffering from deafness caused by the said accident; (2) that he suffered pain on movement by reason of the condition of his right knee and ankle and conld not walk any distance without the aid of a stick; (3) that he was unable to concentrate to the same extent as previously npon his business' and as the result his earning capacity was greatly depreciated; (4) that he was deprived substantially of the enjoyment of life which but for the accidenf ha would have had. His Honour found it not proved that Petherick was -suffering from deafness caused by the accident. He found upon the evidence that the physical injuries proved were a cnt on the head and bruising of the leg and ankle. There are not sufficient proof of any physical • injury due' to shock. Condition Exaggerated. "Upon the evidence," continued the judgment, "I find that if there be any real and uncontrollable lack of con- . centration by the plaintifi! in his business (of which I am not satisfied) it is due to distress alid anxiety for his wife and that damages in respect thereof are irrecoverable. With regard to his alleged incapacity to walk as well now as before tho accident, I am forced to the conclusion that his condition is much exaggerated, and I am unable to accept his statement that after this lapse of Jtime he is still suffering pain in his leg and ankle — he said nothing to Dr. Rhind of any pain in these limbs. There are no signs of injury to the limbs other than from the old standing disease of the hip. He may have suffered some inconvenience and pain for a short period after the accident, but that is all. "As forming a part of the first clause of action special damages are claimed as follows: — Hospital expenses £16 163, medical expenses £16 16s, loss of earnings £70. The last item is purely an estimate and cannot be treated aa special damage. The proved loss oi earnings will be considered in th« claim for general damages. The defendant disputes the claim for hospital expenses but does not press the objection. The expenses were undoubtedly incurred, and although. not necessarily so, the fact of the plaintifi: being in the hospital was probably some benefit to his wife. I propose to allow it. The medical expenses are admitted. In respect of this first cause of action the plaintiff makes the exorbitant claim of £2000 in addition to the special damages. I hold he is entitled to damages for pain and suffering, and for loss of possible earnings during the time he was in hospital, and for a reasonable time thereafter whilst he was partially incapacitated by pain in his leg and ankle. I think he will be generously treated by assessing his damages at £150 with £33 12s special damages. "As to the second cause of action, which was withdrawn after the defendant had opened his case, the plaintiff will be non-suited with costs. There remains the third cause of action, by reason that he is" deprived of the society and services of his wife, for v?hich he claims damages. . . Takrng all relevant matters into consideration £ award £250 under this head. "Judgment will be for the plaintiff, Frederick William Petherick, for the sum of £433 12s. In compliance with the request of eounsel his Honour did not deal with fche question of costs pending arsument