Case Withdrawn From Jury

Manawatu Times, Volume 62, Issue 30, 5 February 1937, Page 8

Case Withdrawn From Jury

INJURED PEDESTRIAN’S CLAIM AGAINST TAXI PROPRIETOR Claiming £1320 14s Gd damages as a result of having been knocked down by a motor-car in Rangitikei street, Palmerston North, on April 22 last, William James Guntrip, of Wellington, insurance agent, proceeded against Alfred George Cawood, of Palmerston North, taxi proprietor, in the Supreme Court at Palmerston North yesterday before Mr Justice Ostler and a jury of 12. Mr H. R. Cooper appeared for plaintiff and Mr A. M. Ougley for defendant. The following jury was empanelled: Messrs A. McKenzie (foreman), T. A. Wallis, P. Childs, W. M. Millington, M. Hansen, W. A. Sutherland, W. li. Brown, N. P. Hanson, J. P. Holt, 11. J. Freeman, R. McLean and It. T. McGrane. Plaintiff alleged in his statement of claim that defendant, by his agent or servant, so negligently, carelessly or unskilfully drove and managed his motorcar on Rangitikei street that it collided with plaintiff, who was lawfully walking across the highway. Defendant’s agent, it was alleged, failed to keep a proper look-out for pedestrian traffic, failed to give any warning of his approach and failed to stop, slow down or steer clear of plaintiff. As a result of the accident, plaintiff was soverely bruised and injured and suffered great pain, suffering and shock, and, in particular, suffered a fracture of the skull, necessitating a surgical operation, and was permanently restricted in his hearing in the right ear and was partially affected in his eyesight. As a further result, plaintiff had incurred expense for hospital, medical attention, travelling and loss of damaged clothing and personal effects, and had been unable to follow his usual occupation for a period exceeding 19 w eeks and would be able to perform only one-half of such duties for an estimated period of a further six months. Plaintiff accordingly claimed £326 14s 6d special damages and £IOOO general damages. Particulars of the special damages were as follow: Taxi and train fares £2 5s 9d, hospital £2l 18s, Boweu street hospital £2O 7s 3d, medical fees £56 5s 6d, clothing and watch damaged £ls 18s, loss of wages £2lO. Defendant, in his statement of defence, denied the allegations of negligence on the part of his driver and alleged that the collision had been entirely due to the negligence of plaintiff in he had failed to keep a proper look-out for approaching traffic, and that plaintiff, when about to cross the highway, suddenly and without warning, placed himself in the track of the motor car, which was being lawfully driven along the highway. For a further defence, defendant claimed, if negligence were proven on the part of his driver, that plaintiff had been guilty of contributory negligence. A further defence was that the collision had been an inevitable accident. After evidence for plaintiff had been tendered, Mr Ongley, for defendant, submitted that there was no evidence from which the jury could possibly bring in a verdict for plaintiff. With this contention, his Honour concurred, aud accordingly withdrew the case from the jury snd gave judgment for defendant with costs, according to scale, on the amount claimed. Mr Cooper applied for extended time in which to move for a new trial.. In granting an extension for 14 days, hm Honour expressed the opinion that Mr Cooper's proper procedure would be to appeal.