INJURED BY A FALLING HOARDING.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXIII, Issue 1022, 27 July 1911, Page 3

INJURED BY A FALLING HOARDING.

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES

At the Palmerston Magistrate’s Court on Tuesday, Fanny Wingfield (Mr R. Moore) sued J. H. Meyer and W. W. Illingworth, contractors, Wellington, and T. Andrew, Palmerston, Mr Fitzherbert appeared for Andrew, and Mr Cooper for Meyer and Illingworth. The claim was for general damages and 7 s special damages. It appeared from the evidence set out that in May, 1911, Meyer and Illingworth, contractors for the erection of Collinson and Cuuninghame’s new building in Broad street, erected a hoarding and a stack of bricks in connection with the erection of the building. ’ Andrew was employed by Meyer and Illingworth carting the building materials. Plaintiff, on May 2nd was walking by the hoarding. Andrew led a horse and cart across the footpath, and whilst doing so the wheel of the cart struck the hoarding and knocked it down, also a quantity of bricks. Plaintiff was knocked over and fell beneath the hoarding. She had one of her ribs fractured and was crushed and bruised. She then and since, it was alleged, suffered great pains and nervous shock, and has been it is stated, prevented from attending to any household duties or any other occupation. The claim, as stated, was based on these facts. Plaintiff, was a resident of Foxton at the time of the accident, and on that occasion was in the company of other residents of Foxton. Evidence was given by S. Jickell, Borough Engineer as to the state of the hoarding, witness expressing the opinion that it would not have fallen unless knocked down. Witness also gave formal evidence as to the defendants Meyer andlllingford, having erected the hoarding. Dr. Mandl, Foxton, gave evidence as to the state of health of plaintiff immediately following upon the accident and since. He thought thcie .vould be no permanent effect vrom the accident. Plaintiff, in Uer evidence, corroborated the statement of claim as to the nature and effect of the accident. She did not know how it actually occurred. Her daughter and another lady with her endeavoured to remove the hoarding from off witness, but were unable, and the assistance ot some men had to be procured. Witness described the injuries she received, her statement being in accordance with the doctor’s evidence. Further evidence in support ol the plaintiff’s case was given by Mesdames Madden and Wyeth and J. Madden. Mesdames Madden and Wingfield denied on crossexamination that the latter had caused the accident by getting in the way of the horse and cart when crossing the pavement. The S.M. intimated that he would like to view the scene of the accident.

Mr Cooper, ou behalf of Meyer and Illingworth, intimated that he intended to ask for a non-suit, and the Magistrate said he would be prepared to hear him. Mr Fltzherbert said that he also intended to ask for a non-suit, but to him the Magistrate said he could not grant one. The onus lay with him to prove that there bad not been negligence in knocking down the hoarding. Mr Jickell’s evidence, in his opinion, showed that the hoarding erected by Meyer and Illingworth was a good one and would not have fallen unless knocked down. The hoarding was knocked down by the wheel of the dray, and it was for counsel to show that there had not been negligence on the part of his client.

Mr Moore addressed the Court on the non-suit applied for by Mr Cooper. Counsel stated that whilst it was quite possible that

the hoarding erected was quite sufficient for the Borough of Palmerston, it did not follow that it was sufficiently secure in law to prevent an accident of the nature that had occurred. Counsel reviewed at some length the evidence which had been given relating to the mode of structure and erection of the hoarding and the manner in which it had been knocked down and contended that though it may not have been objected to by the officials of the Borough Council, it was nevertheless not sufficiently strongly erected to exonerate defendants from the consequences of its having caused an accident. The Magistrate said he would consider the point, and the Court

was adjourned. On resuming, after inspection of the premises, Mr Cooper addressed the Court in support of his motion for a nonsuit in lavour of the defendants Meyer and Illingworth. Mr Fitzherbert also spoke in support of a similar application on behalf of defendant Andrew. His Worship ruled that he could not grant a nonsuit for the contractors until the rest of the case was heard, and in reply to Mr Fitzherbert’s application he certainly considered there was a case to answer. Thos. Andrew, defendant, then gave evidence that on the day in question he had seen Mrs Madden and Mrs Wingfield on the footpath crossing the entrance to the new building. Mrs Madden went on, but Mrs Wingfield stepped hack out of sight. Witness, see-

ing the way was clear, immediately put his horse through the opening. As the horse had to draw up an incline he was going fast. He beard Mrs Madden call “ Come on, mother ; hurry, and immediately he saw Mrs Wingfield right under the horse’s head, en- • .flavouring to cross* In order to

save her he had to instantly pull the horse’s head to the side. This brought the tail of the cart round against the hoarding and knocked it over on top of her. It was impossible to do anything else than he did, and the accident was entirely caused by the plaintiff herself. Defendant was cross-examined at great length by Mr Moore, but maintained that it was impossible lor him to have stopped the horse instantly, or pulled him back instead of turning him round and thus coming into contact with the hoarding. Nothing else could have been done on the instant except what he did. Defendant was also cross-examined as to the nature of his engagement with the defendants Meyer and Illingworth. Mr Cooper objected to this on the ground that it had no bearing on the case, but the Magistrate ruled that counsel was in order in cross-examining on this point for the purpose of showing that Meyer and Illingworth were responsible tor Andrew’s actions. Corroborative evidence was given by two other witnesses who had seen the occurrence, and deposed to having seen Mrs , Wingfield draw back, leaving the way clear, the horse having then came forward. Mrs Madden having called to her mother to come on, aed the latter having then got into the horse’s way, and herself caused the accident. These witnesses were also closely cross-examined by Mr Moore. One of them objected, but the magistrate informed him he was there to give what information he could, and directed him to answer.

Walter Barnard was also called for the defence, to prove the hoarding had been substantially erectedThis witness also was closely cross-examined. The Magistrate, after considering his decision, said he was satisfied with the evidence of the defendants, which showed that the accident had been caused by the plaintiff herself. It was no doubt a very unfortunate accident, and he did not think it could be held to be anything more. On the explanation of the facts given by the defendants, it appeared to him they were not liable. Asked if defendants claimed costs, Mr Cooper said his clients did not, as they sympathised with the plaintiff for her suffering, and would have taken the same action themselves in similar circumstances.

Mr Fitzherbert said his client claimed costs, and defendant Andrew was accordingly awarded 4s Court costs, £1 witness expenses, and 3s solicitor’s fee.