TRAMWAYS ACCIDENT

New Zealand Times, Volume LIII, Issue 12621, 4 December 1926, Page 2

TRAMWAYS ACCIDENT

A PASSENGER INJURED BY SUDDEN STOPPAGE OF CAR CLAIM FOR DAMAGES SUCCEEDS In the Supreme Court yesterday his Honour Mr Justice MacGregor gave consideration to a claim for damages arising out of injuries being received by a passenger travelling on one of the corporation trams. Tlie parties in tho case were Francis Roberts, storeman, of Wellington, plaintiff, and ,the city corporation, defendants. The statement of claim set out that on May 6th last the plaintiff was a passenger on a Newtown oar, when a sudden stoppage caused him to ho precipitated violently forward. As a result of coming into contact with a portion of the ironwork he received injuries to his sight and hearing, and nervous system. Negligence was alleged on tho part of the defendant’s servants in allowing the overhead gear to he defective, this prompting the stoppage. By way of compensation for his injuries the plaintiff claimed special and general damages aggregating £414 Is. The defence was a general denial of responsibility for the accident, contending that had the plaintiff had his wits about him he would not have sustained injuries. Tire principal witness, Matthew Cable, tramways manager, said that tho switch gear at Newtown was up-to-date and of the latest construction. The overhead lines were constantly inspected, but it was not possible to ensure that none of tho springs would break. When a trolley pole came off tihe motorman was required to stop in the shortest possible distance. Cross-examined he regarded the falling wires were more dangerous to the public than the application of the emergency brake. This was particularly so in regard to double-decker oars. Mr J. O’Shea, for the corporation, submitted that the defendant had discharged any onus on it to prove that it was not negligent. It was clearly established that the application of the emergency brake was tlie correct thing to do. . Mr O. C. Mazengarb, for plaintiff, declared that there was a lack of supervision somewhere, and maintained that his client was entitled to soma relief for the injuries sustained. After a brief retirement his Honour said there was no doubt that the plaintiff had grossly exaggerated his damages, but there was equally no doubt that h© suffered some substantial injuries, particularly to his nervous system. In the present case the real issue was whether the defendant had done everything that skill and care could provide. He did not think that the apparatus was proved to be in perfect order, and there was no weekly inspection. This was the substantial cause of the accident, and the defendant had not discharged the onus of proof that there was not negligence. The plaintiff was entitled to recover, in the circumstances, and would be awarded £l2O, with costs on the lowest scale.