£100 DAMAGES

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIV, Issue 10297, 4 June 1919, Page 4

£IOO DAMAGES

MOTOR-CAR AND BOY

ACTION ARISES OUT OF A WILLIS STREET MISHAP.

A rather interesting claim for damages was- heard in the Supreme Court yesterday. It arose out of a motor mishap to a little- boy of live years, who is said to have been very badly, and perhaps The plaintiffs in the action little boy..-John McCallumj and vlus father, Matthew. McLarenVMeCailumr who at the time of the accident, was attached to the Police Eorce iir Weiliivton and is now a con'Stable' l sta-' tioncd at Taumarunui. ehdant' was Harold Harding Morris,- a manufacturing jeweller, of Wellington. Mr H F O'Leary appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr P. \V. Jackson *or_ther defendant. Tho Chief Justice (hir Robert Stout) was on the bench, and a jury of twelve, with Mr T. W. Stace as foreman, was installed. The amount claimed was £6OO. An outline of the case was given t>y Mr O'Leary, who said that-the accident occurred in May of last year at the intersection of Upper Willis street' and Ghuzneo street. At about ten minutes past five in the evening-Morris was x motoring up Wiliis street; - " andtho little boy was crossing . that thoroughfare to join his sister; when the car knocked the lad .dqwn_and ran over him: The street was practically clear at the time, and evidence would be given to the effect that tne car was travelling at between twenty and twenty-five miles an that it did not slow down at the intersection The car did not pull up until it had gone twenty yards or so from the spot where it struck ttit> boy. It was alleged that Morris was guilty of negligent driving. It was admitted that he tooted his horn, but it was contended that his \ duty-.did' not end there, . and that he was driving over the intersection at too fast a pace for the safety of pedestrians. Even if he had been travelling art a moderate pace, he was guilty ofjiegligence if he did not keep a proper lookout for pedestrians.

The city by-laws provided '# maximum speed of fifteen miles per-hour for motor-cars travelling along this street, and a maximum of eight miles per hour over the intersections. Defendant had admitted to the police that he was going over the intersection at the rate of twelve miles an Hour. The sum of £6OO was claimed 'because the boy had had " .his thigh broken, his back injured, and his head knocked about. The'-chjid suffered from the accident stffll." 'He suffered from headaches, could not\ walk far, was deaf in one ear, and was not as bright as formerly.

The case for Morris, the defendant, was put by Mr Jackson, who said that the burden of proving negligence was upon the McCallums. Morris said" the occurrence was purely accidental.

His Honour: I don't suppose anyone suggested that it was wilful. JLt may be accidental, and, yet.there .may be negligence. -■<■- «

Mr Jackson said that Morris was travelling at a perfectly reasonable speed. Five or six little children were playing on the road, near.,. St. Peter's Church, and when he' blew his horn they ran on to the footpath. The road then seemed to be perfectly dear, but the next thing Morris saw was a child within a few feet of his car. arid in a fraction.pX'a/.second the child was knocked down. Slorris could not say where-the child came from: it was all so sudderi^No 1 'matter what pace he had been tfavellihg"at he could not have avoided the. .child. He had not seen the boy McCalluin because his attention was concentrated on the other children. '""" After a three hours' retirement the jury returned a verdict of £IUO for the plaintiff, and judgment was entered accordingly. The juryllwas not unanimous, and the foreman stated that it was a three-fourths., .verdict.,..