£l,000 FOR INJURIES

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 513, 16 November 1928, Page 13

£l,ooo FOR INJURIES

PEDESTRIAN’S CLAIM MOTOR SMASH AT NEWTON An involved problem depending on the rule of the road rvas presented for j solution in the Supremo Couth vester- j day before Mr. Justice Blair and a j JU Tlio action was a claim for £I,OOO | general damages and £l2 medical expenses brought by a pedestrian, Ed- i ward Campton (Mr. Meredith and Mr. Hubble) against the Vacuum Oil Com- | pany. Ltd. (Mr. Haddow). Plaintiff alleged that In defiance of i the rule of the road one of the Vacuum. Company’s vehicles failed to give way j to a light truck driven by a grocer, L. A. Bell, which came along Ponsonbj- . Road to pass into Newton Road, and consequently it ran into and smashed ■ Bell’s truck. Plaintiff was struck by the wreckage and was so seriously injured about the skull that he spent about three weeks in hospital, remained at home under treatment tor several further weeks and was still ; suffering from after-effects. Mr. Meredith said an important point would be whether the driver of the Vacuum Oil lorry had observed the regulation requiring precedence to be given to a vehicle coming in at an intersection from tlie right-hand side. Evidence was given that ooth vehicles were travelling at between 12 and 20 miles an hour. A driver of a, van following the oil lorry was ot opinion that the latter should have given way to Bell. . _ A witness for the defence sato the Papesche, ro driver of. the latter said he signalled he was gomb on, and ns iii-lit. Bell was about o stop. -Ge case was resumed this morning. Papesche, continuing his evidence, said he had blown his horn and put was going.°had°repeated the facts had' 1 seemed ’quite' 3 satisfied 1 with his explanation. No one had suggested U Dn u:B U Gunson aU S ave evidence that Compton was suffering from a heart defect of some years standing. ft would not have been able loiieer than three years in any case. Dr. Esdailo Moore said the- condition nh intiff’s heart existed before th«> accident: He estimated that plaintiff was 20 per cent, permanently disab ML Haddow, in addressing the jury, maintained that Papische could not be held wholly responsible, as ) q £ contributory negligence on the part ot Compton and his son, who had failed to observe due caution when crossing the road. If there was no negugence on the part of the old man there was none on the part of Papische, he submitted. . Mr. Meredith said there was a cieai case against the Vacuum Oil Company for negligence. Bell had the right ol road according to the regulations and Papische had acted as though he thought Bell would turn into Karangahape Road. Flo had not discovered his mistake until it was too late to avoid a collision* Addressing the jury, his Honour said the case was simple. Although there were two vehicles in the collision it was sufficient if plaintiff could prove negligence against one of them, so both vehicles may have been equally responsible. When two people were responsible for damage, as in this case, the plaintiff could sue either one or both. The point for the jury to decide was whether the driver of the petrol waggon had been guilty of negligence. It was the duty of the petrol wagon to give way to Bell’s vehicle which was approaching from the right. In the evidence heard, there had been no suggestion that Bell was driving at high speed. , (Proceeding.)