ACCIDENT ON BRIDGE

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 1073, 10 September 1930, Page 7

ACCIDENT ON BRIDGE

DAMAGES FOR PEDESTRIAN LORRY DRIVER TO PAY From Our Own Correspondent HAMILTON. Today. A claim for £55 11s for injuries received in a motor accident was heard in the Supreme Court today, before Mr. Justice Smith. The plaintiff was Henry Bromley, a farmer, of Ngongotabu, and the defendant Matthew Henderson. a contractor, of Takapuna. In his statement oi claim plaintiff said that, on August 5, 1929, while walking across the Ngongotalia Bridge, he was struck by defendant’s lorry. The bridge was in a state of disrepair and as it was dangerous Cor any vehicle to attempt to pass or overtake a pedestrian, plaintiff held that the lorry was recklessly and negligently driven by defendant or his employee. , The claim was for C 1 Is medical expenses, £4 10s /loss of wages and £SO general damages. Plaintiff said he was struck on the head. The driver of the lorry refused to give his name, apd threatened to give witness a hiding when, he tried to take the number of the lorry. Since the accident he had been unable to carry on his farmer employment and was now on casual light work. He had not enjoyed good health since the time of the accident. Plaintiff’s former employer, George Stuart Ross, said plaintiff was unable to do farm work after the accident and ho left witness to obtain lighter employment. The driver of the lorry, Thomas Henderson, said lie approached the bridge at three or four miles an hour Plaintiff was walking on the left side of*-the bridge and witness saw him cross over to the right. Witness sounded his horn twice. There was 7ft between the lorry and the right side of the bridge. When he had taken the lorry over the bridge he stopped to drop some timber. BronHev came up and said he had been knocked down. His Honour held that plaintiff had been struck by the lorry, and that the principle applied that where an accident happened in daylight there was a strong presumption of negligence. Plaintiff complained immediately t<> defendant, and the evidence showed that he was treated very curtly. Judgment was given for plaintiff for £1 Is special damages and £2O general damages. The judge said no medical evidencehad been called and no account could be taken of economic loss. The general damages were assessed on the pain suffered following a blow. There was no evidence to show that plaintiff was not as fit as he was before the accident, except that of friends. C’osts and expenses were allowed on 'the Magistrate’s Court scale.