STRUCK BY AEROPLANE.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXV, Issue 10, 10 January 1913, Page 6

STRUCK BY AEROPLANE.

an ordeal at the seaside. At the West Riding Assizes at Leeds a sheriff’s jury recently awarded Miss E. C. Pimlott, a trained nurse, of Wood Cottage, Ripperholme, near Halifax, £175 damages against Mr. R. 1. Isaacson, engineer, the inventor of die engines for flying machines hearing his name, in respect of injuries sustained by being run into by the latter’s aeroplane at Filey on August ‘2lst, of 1911. According to Mr. Bairstow, K.C., on behalf of the plaintiff, Miss Pimlott went to nurse a friend and subsequently accompanied her to Filey. On August 21, 1911, they saw an aeroplane on the sands, and went down to get k closer view of the machine. Eventually they saw it rise and make off in the direction of Flamborough.

The plaintiff remained on the sands near the cliffs watching the flight, and ultimately noticed that the aeroplane was returning. Suddenly she realised that it was making directly towards her, and she endeavoured to get out of its way, but failed to do so, and the machine ran into her. She was lifted off her feet and carried up into the air on one of the wings. She was shockingly bruised by being beaten against the cliffs, while she was also rendered unconscious, and did not regain her faculties until she had been removed to a convalescent homo near by. * Since the plaintiff had been unable to follow her employment, and had spent large sums in visiting such health resorts as Harrogate, Bakewell, and Scarborough, and in taking treatment. She had been unable to accept offers of employment on account of her ’health. Miss Pirnlott claimed altogether £213 os Id, including six months’ salary at the rate of three guineas a week. “Hooked Up” by the P/!achine. Giving evidence, the plaintiff said she was under the impression that the aeroplane hooked her up. It struck her very hard, and she was bruised from head to foot. Tire last thing she remembered as she was caught by the machine was a sight of the sea. Mr. Arthur Willey, for the defendant, who admitted liability, challenged tho amount of the alleged damages, remarking that although it was not contended that for two or three months the plaintiff suffered considerably from the effects of her experience, it was asserted that there was not a particle of evidence to show that since January last-she had been a hit tho

worse for her ordeal. His ease was that at that date the plaintiff had substantially recovered from her injuries. After hearing medical testimony on both sides the jury awarded damages as stated.