SUPREME COURT

Manawatu Standard, Volume LVII, Issue 215, 11 August 1937, Page 10

SUPREME COURT

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES. SHANNON ACCIDENT CASE. Claiming £206 10s lid special and £2500 general damages against Thomas llopoama, of Moutoa,, as the outcome of injuries suffered in a collision last Christmas Eve near Shannon, between a car driven by her husband and another driven by defendant, Mrs Katherine Silk, of Foxton, brought a case in the Supreme Court at Palmerston North, yesterday afternoon, when His Honour the Chief Justice, Sir Michael Myers, was asked to assess the damages, her husband having already been awarded a total of £552 16s in another case against defendant. Medical evidence was given by Mr D. Mitchell, F.R.C.S., that when admitted to hospital plaintiff was severely injured, had no memory of the accident, and was suffering from shock. There was a disability to her hand and an injured knee-joint, with part of the knee-cap, which had been fractured in several places, missing. There was a very real possibility of arthritis developing later. She had suffered a compouncl fracture of the nasal bone, and various cuts, which had left permanent slight scars, about the face and neck. Her teeth had been broken. Mr D. S. Wylie, F.R.C.S., testified that he had examined plaintiff on April 4 and August 9. He considered that she had made an extraordinary recovery from her injuries, her permanent injuries now being limitation of the movement of a thumb and limitation of a knee-joint. These troubles might diminish, but she would not recover full flexion. It was a case wherein the development ot so-called traumatic arthritis was a real possibility, and it was difficult to estimate the likeihood, but it was a contingency which must be considDr. J. S. Monro, an eye specialist, gave evidence that when he examine plaintiff in July she complained ot headaches and symptoms of eyestrain. Witness came to the conclusion that it would be necessary lor her to wear glasses to correct errors in sight which, as the result of her accident, were inducing the symptoms of eye-strain. There was no damage to the eyes. , , , Plaintiff stated in evidence that sue had worn glasses ten years ago tor a period of’ six months under, an oculist’s advice. She still suffered ve U frequent pains In her knee, and could only ' negotiate stairs ■■ slowly. This concluded the evidence for the plaintiff. ~ T Called for the defence, Mr J. Miller, F.R.C.S., stated in evidence that in the X-ray photographs that he examined he could not see any part or Hie knee-cap missing, nor was he aware that there had been any loss of cartilage in the joint. Decision was reserved until 10 a- m . to-day. , HIS HONOUR’S DECISION. Delivering his reserved judgment this morning, the Chief Justice stated that he had not found .it. easy to assess the damages. _ Plaintiff had suffered numerous injuries, as to one of which the probable effect could not be foreseen with certainty. Plaintiff had been cut about the face ai)d this had left some scarring. His Honour did not regard that particular injury ss very serious, hut, nevertheless, plaintiff was entitled to something for the pain and suffering caused, and for the disfigurement that had been fett. Likewise, she was entitled to something for the pain and suffering from her broken nose, and not merely a nominal sum. Fortunately, there was no permanent disfigurement from that injury. Astigmatism of the eyes His Honour regarded as quite a minor •matter, but it had to be considered in dealing with the injuries in the aggregate. There had been laceration of the left forearm, and an injury which might be permanent, had been done to the left thumb. Hqwever, the worst injury had been a comminuted fracture of the right knee-cap, which had caused her great pain and suffering, and had left a permanent disability, the severity of which depended upon whether or not it would lead to arthritis, as two medical men had confidently expressed the opinion that it W “One thing is certain,” added His Honour, “and that is that plaintiff will never again be anything like the woman she was prior to the accident* She suffered injuries which involved permanent disability and enormous pain and suffering. Her capacity to do her ordinary work in life has bene diminished and will be more serious as time goes on, and, in addition, to a considerable extent, she has necessarily lost her capacity for the enjoyment of life.” : Commenting that he bad tried to fix an amount which was fair and reasonable to both parties, His Honour said that there was always the possibility of an injustice being, done to defendant in awarding too much, because results predicted as probable might never eventuate; but, on the other hand, the results might prove to be much worse than anticipated, in which event plaintiff might receive too little, . . . Taking everything into consideration, said His Honour, he thought he would be doing substantial justice by awarding plaintiff £9OO general damages and £206 10s lid special damages. Judgment was accordingly entered for this amount, with costs.*