AN INJURED KNEE-CAP.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXVI, Issue 39, 21 June 1913, Page 7

AN INJURED KNEE-CAP.

CLAIM IN SUPREME COURT,

LEYDON v. THE KING

lu the Supreme Court at New Plymouth yesterday the case of John Leydon v. The King, a claim for £5Ol damages for personal injury sustained on the Stratford railway station on June 22nd, 1912, was heard. Suppliant jvas represented by Mr R. McVeagh (Auckland), with him Mr W. G. Malone, and the Crown was represented by the Crown Solicitor, Mr H. H. Ostler.

Suppliant, in his evidence, said that at the time of the accident he was in business as a furniture dealer in Stratford. On June 22nd last he disposed of two articles of furniture to Mr J. B. Hine, M.P., of Toko, and had been instructed to send them out by the train in the evening. Ho went to the station with the articles and purchased excess tickets for them. The guard then asked if Mr Hine was on the train and applicant moved up the train from the van in order to ■ look for Mr Hine. He had hot gone far before he' tripped over a tarpaulin and fell on his knee, At the time of the acIcMent the 'lighting of the station was not satisfactory. It was Saturday night, and the supply of light was taxed. The tarpaulins and the asphalt on the platform looked to be the same color. His injury consisted of a broken knee-cap, for which he was treated in the public hospital for six weeks, at a cost of twelve guineas. At present lie had to bo careful with Ills knee, which would only support him when his leg was straight out. He had to use two sticks. During the last two or three months ho had noticed little improvement in the condition of tho knee. An old complaint from which he suffered had been aggravated by the accident. Since the accident he had not been able to undertake his former occupation. At tho time his business was prospering;

and his net income at the time of the accident was £63:2. hi the year before it had been £3BO. To Mr Ostler : He did not think that at the time his foot caught in

the tarpaulins he could have been looking at the carriage window. Ho .lid not remember giving an interview vitli a reporter of the Stratford Evening Post concerning the accident, and would not admit that the account ol she accident in that journal was substantially correct. Walter Joseph Newton, manager of the Stratford Electrical Supply Company, gave evidence as to the lighting of the station. Saturday night was a oad night for the ligats, so far as the railway people were concerned, because in the first instance there were not enough lights; and in the second place, they were a lot of old ■arbon lamps which were rarely used. There should have been metallic filament lamps there, for the past two years, at any rate. He had, on one occasion, sixteen months ago, been a leputation from the company to the itationmaster, asking. that better lamps bo placed there, as they thought the station lighting was disgraceful. At that time the company was not in possession of its new 1 power, and the lighting was very poor where carbon lamps were concerned. To Mr Ostler: The number of lamps had not been increased since the accident, and the lights had been in their present position for the last five years-. He had heard of the accident through the complaint of insufficient lighting. Dr. Steven, medical superintendent of the Stratford Hospital, deposed that Leydon had suffered from a broken knee-cap, being six weeks in hospital. The injuries were of a painful nature at the time, and Leydon left the hospital on crutches. The injury was a permanent one, and it now necessary that Leydon should vise sticks. Indeed, suppliant could never safely dispense with those sticks. Evidence was also given by Dr. Wylie, Sergeant McNeely, and Messrs George Morrish, Samuel Turkingfon, and Alexander Morison.

For the defence evidence was given by James Alexander Rodie, relieving officer in the Railway Department, who deposed that on the 22nd of June last, he was relieving stationmaster at Stratford. When the accident took place, he was at the other end of the platform. When he arrived at the scene of the accident, Mr Leydon was lying on the ground. He had'not seen the tarpaulins before Mr Leydon fell over them. When lie first saw them they were in a line with the lamppost, in the middle of the platform, and about six feet from the lamp. They had been removed because one had been unfolded to allow Leydon to rest on them. The unfolded one took up about a space 4ft. by 2ft. Th the working of the Stratford statioii, while he ' was there 'it was' decidedly necessary to have taupaulias on the station to protect 'gbpds against the weather. The method of loading goods was to take them by hand-barraw from the office to the van. When the accident happened, the luggage had not been brought to the guard’s van. The lights from both trains were shining oil the platform. ' j

To ; Mr Malone : It was not 'a fact that the tarpaulins had come in from the country by the three o’clock train and had been left on the platform. Addressing the jury, Mr Ostler said that if they thought Mr Leydon was not looking where he was going, they could not hold the Government responsible. Mr McVeagh contended that what the jury had to decide was whether or not there was any negligence on the part of the Railway Department on the occasion when Mr Leydon met with his accident—neglect of that ordinary care which a responsible man would exercise in these circumstances. That was the question they would have to decide.

In summing Up, His Honor put the following four questions to the jury: —(1) Were the officers of the Railway Department guilty of negligence m leaving the tarpaulins where they were placed; (2) if there was such negligence, was the accident occasioned thereby; (3) could the plaintiff by the exercise of that prudence and care ordinarily exercised by prudent and careful persons have avoided the accident ; (4) what damages, if any, should be allowed ? % After a three-and-a-half-hour retirement, the jury were unable to agree, and His Honor said he would take a three-fourths verdict. The jury then announced that they had arrived at a decision. They answered all three questions in the affirmative, and assessed damages at £IOO. Mr Ostler: That is a verdict for the defendant. His Hoa r : That is ec.

His Honor put ,i quo.-tmn to Mr McVeagh, who replica. What surprises me is that after finding such a verdict they should have proceeded to assess damages.”

Mr Ostler stated that as the matter had been a most unfoi innate one for Mr Leydon, ne would a. ; s 'or for costs.