SUED HER FIANCE

Hokitika Guardian, 19 July 1930, Page 2

SUED HER FIANCE

GIRL GETS DAMAGES

OOLLISIO N IN J DRIES. / In an action for damages against her fiance for personal injuries, involving the -loss of an eye, received in a motor accident, Miss Martha Amelia Ashton, a London bookbinder, was awarded £1375 in the King’s Bench Division (says the Daily Telegraph).

The case was heard by Mr Justice Charles and a common, jury. 'flie defendant was Mr John William Charles Nash, a printer. Miss Ashton said that the accident was caused by his negligent driving of a nicltor car in which she was a passenger.

The case was that at 8 15 p.m. on April 4, 1929, the defendant was driving her in a sma,'.l car along the eastern end of the Victoria Embankment, when, either through excessive speed or failing to keep a proper lookout, or to apply the brake properly, the car collided with an iron lamppost oil a refuge in the centre of the roadway.

As a result of the accident she lost her right eye, the sight of her left eye was impaired, she has several cuts on the'fade, causing a permanent disfigurement, and she was still suffering from shock, She now had ft glass eye and was obliged to went' spectacles, and she had suffered loss of employment at two guineas a week for many weeks. Nash said that the accident was not due to careless or reckless driving, and could not have been avoided by any reasonable skill or care.

“DID NOT SEE THE POST.” Nash said that he had known Miss Ashton for two years, and was engaged to her. The night of the accident was dark and wet. He did not see the post in the roadway till half a second before striking it, and he automatically put his foot on the brake. He was keeping a proper vVjoktout, but the EM’iankment was very dark—the lighting had since been improved. His own face was badly cut, and both he and his fiancee were taken to Bartholomew’s Hospital. Cross-examined, he said that he was driving 1 afc about 15 miles an hour and trusting to his judgment in the darkness.

Mr Justice Charles: What judgment is there in running full tilt into a lighted refuge, if it was so dark that you could not see? Defendant: I do not say it was impossible to see anything. Mr Du Gann, addressing the jury, said that he had been asked to treat the plaintiff, when giving evidence, with the greatest consideration, He asked the jury whether they thought that the defendant could fail to oxer cl so every proper care, seeing that his passenger was his fiancee,

“THANK GOODNESS!” Mr Justice Charles told the jury that it must disregard the fact that the parties were engaged, and treat them as if they were unknown to each other. The action was quite properly brought and properly defended.

“Thank .goodness, the parties seem to be perfectly good friends still, and you may think with me that defendant would be unfortunate to lose the lady,” added his lordship. The defendant admitted that he ought to have been more cautious. It was a dreadful thing that the ordinary prudence which might have been expected in such circumstances nas lacking in this case. The plaintiff was only ,22, and, if he might say so without impertinene, was, despite her injuries, still a very comely girl. The jury found for the plaintiff awarding her £1250 general and £125 18s 9d special damages.