WIDOW CLAIMS £2,500

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 1047, 11 August 1930, Page 10

WIDOW CLAIMS £2,500

ROADMAN KILLED ON STREET WORKS SUIT AGAINST CONTRACTOR A widow, Anr-ie Irwin, whose husband was fatally injured through being run over in Hopetoun Street, Ponsonby, by a motor-lorry, sued W. Lovett, a carrying contractor, for £2,500 damages, in an action heard by Mr. Justice Herdman and a jury of twelve in the Supreme Court today. victim of the accident. Thomas Irwin, who was injured on the morning of February 20, 1930, and died in hospital the same day, was an Auckland City Council employee. He left a wife and three young children, who, it was stated, were dependent upon him. The (daim, which was made by Mrs. Irwin on behalf of herself and the children, was based on allegations that her husband had been killed as a. result of carelessness or unskilful driving by one of (he defendant’s drivers. It was alleged that the lorry-driver entered Hopetoun Street on the wrong side of the road, and in the circumstances failed to keep a proper lookout, failed to give warning of his approach, failed to stop within a reasonable time of seeing the workman, and failed to stop before doing the man injury. The defence to the claim was that the accident was inevitable, or, alternatively, that the accident was caused by Irwin’s negligence. Mr. A. H. Johnstone appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. E. H. Northcroft for the defendant. Irwin was a member of the City Council’s road-repairing gang, which was engaged in tar-sealing operations on Hopetoun Street, according to Mr. Johnstone. Work was started about 7.30 a.m. and a portion of the lefthand side of the road had been sealed. Irwin and a mate were going backward and forward to a heap of sand on the right-hand footpath, lifting shovelfuls and spreading it on the sprayed surface. A tar sprayer was standing about the centre of the street. About this tim© a lorry, laden with sand for the job and driven by a man named Gould, drove slowly into Hopetoun Street on the right, and continued on at the same pace. Irwin, who had just scattered a shovelful of sand, was in the act of crossing the road for more, and stopped in the centre of the road with his hack to the approaching lorry, in an attempt to attract the foreman’s attention. At that moment a workmate yelled a warning (o Irwin, who looked round. Too late, however, for he was knocked down, the front wheels passing over both legs. The lorry did not stop until both the rear wheels were resting on the prostrate man’s legs, causing dreadful and fatal injuries, which turned one bystander sick. CONTROL OF VEHICLE Counsel submitted that the lorrydriver could not have had the vehicle under proper control, otherwise he would have stopped sooner after striking the man, and could not have been keeping a proper look-out. A workmate of Irwin’s, with whom he had been sanding the freshly-laid tar, Robert William Spiers, said that as the lorry was approaching, the driver continued sounding the horn, as he wanted to know where to deposit the sand. Irwin was aware the lorry was approaching, and he was struck by the left mudguard and thrown across the front of the lorry. After the front wheels passed over his legs, Irwin turned on his hack, covering Ms face with his hands, shouting “Stop” thrice, but the lorry continued on until the Back wheels mounted both his legs. Under cross-examination. Spiers said that on the morning of the accident he did not consider the driver was to blame, and he still held the view that there had not been any neglect by the driver. The laden weight of the lorry would be about 10 tons. A nonsuit was moved for by Mr. Northcroft on the ground that there was no evidence of negligence by the driver, his Honour, however, reserving the point. For the defence, Mr. Northcroft appealed to the jury not to allow sympathy for the widow or children or for the unfortunate man to deter it from deciding on the facts whether the driver had been negligent. He emphasised that this case differed in a marked degree from the majority of similar cases, in wfticli a person was struck down unexpectedly, the approach of the vehicle in this case being apparent to everyone. Counsel submitted that the accident was caused by Irwin turning round, crossing legs and stumbling. The driver had puiied up as quickly as possible. The lorry-driver, Thomas Harold Gould, said that in rounding the corner into Hopetoun Street, he sounded the horn, and continued the blasts as he drove slowly down the street at about three to five miles an hour. He watched a telegraphpole to avoid colliding with it, and as witness straightened up the wheel he saw a man just on the left front of the lorry. Someone called out and the man jumped in the direction of the lorry, the vehicle being stopped in from 10 to 12ft. An eyewitness, Richard Potter, said that Irwin, in crossing the road converging toward the front of the lorry, was called to by his mate. Irwin straightened up suddenly, and in turning round crossed his legs, stumbled back two paces and fell on his back and lay apparently stunned. The victim was not struck until he was on the ground. Similar evidence was given by Michael Lenihan and William Henry Thomas. (Proceeding.)