ACCIDENT CLAIM

Hawke's Bay Herald-Tribune, Volume 81, Issue 39, 9 November 1937, Page 6

ACCIDENT CLAIM

Teamster Seeks £2500. Ganeral Damages SUPREME . COURT HEARING

Iiability for-the accident, is, admitted by the defendant in the motor accidentr damages claim at "present being heard by Mr Justicfl Ostlei- and a jury in the Supreme Court *at Napier,' where John Smiley, of Hastings, teamster/ is claiming £2500 general damages from Donald Keighley, of Fernhill, gardener, for in- 1 juries xeceived in the accidehtt which occurred on May 25, 1935. The amount of special damages has been agreed apon at £694 13/-, and the jury is asked to assess general damages. Mr W. Selwyn Averill appears for the plaintiff and Mr H. B. Lusk . for the defendant. f Following is the jury: Messns G. A. Sandilands (foreman) , E. G. Haines, J. "Watters, A. S. Boston, P. Burton, D. J. Fenwick, J. * S. Gelling, D. * J. Oliver^ J. M. Graham, R. Salthouse, E. Magill, L. G. Jackson. Mr Averill, in. his opening address, explained that the plaintiff, who was an , expert teamster^ had. ' been nnder the doctox since the accident more than two years ago] and had not yet fully fecovered. The negligence of the> defendant in ■ causing the - accident. was admitted, and, as it would be improper under such circumstanees to mention the •vents surrounding the accident, the evidence which was to be called would eommence from the - period after the accident. ' The main injury suffered had been a eompound fracture of the leg, near the ankle, and, owing to the fact that' the plaintiff was in the unforbunate position of having bones"' that would not knit speedily, several operations had been '*ecessaTy, the _ leg had been shortened a quarter-of-an-inclr and- had wasted to aome extent. Ih assessing an- amount the jury would be told in evidence that the plaintifE was not a good subject for general anaesthesia, and the doctors had been forced to use local anaesthetics in operations -upon him^ and, as the effect •f these was not complete, he had wuffered considerable pain. Mr Aveiill then proceeded to call the •vidence of the plaintiff and of doctors, is support of his submissions. (Proceeding.)