HEAVY DAMAGES CLAIMED

Taranaki Central Press, Volume IV, Issue 390, 23 March 1937, Page 6

HEAVY DAMAGES CLAIMED

LARGEST IN DOMINION.

SEQUEL TO COLLISION. Hearing at Wellington. Press Association—Copyright. Wellington, March 22, Arising from a motor collision near Waikanae last August, a case commenced in the Supreme Court to-day before Mr. Justice Reed involving claims amounting to £15,150, the largest damages for personal injuries ever claimed in New Zealand. The plaintiffs are Sarah Ann Petherick and her husband, Frederick William Petherick, motor assessor, Wellington, and the defendants are William ■ Alexander Waters, engineer. Palmerston North, and the N.I.M.U. Mutual Insurance Company as statutory indemnifier. Because of the legal questions involved there is a probability that the case will ultimately go to the Privy Council.

By agreement the Court heard together the two separate actions which the case comprises, one in which Mrs Petherick claims £11,547/1/7 from Waters and the other in which her husband claims £2103/12/-. £lOOO, and £5OO in three causes of action from Waters and the N.I.M.U. Company.

Statement of Claim. ; The statement of claim on behalf i of Mrs. Petherick said that on Aug--1 ust 23 last year she was a passenger in her car, which was being driven by her husband on the main road near Waikanae. Waters, it was alleged, so negligently and unskilfully drove his car that it collided with plaintiff’s ear. As the result, of the collision Mrs. Petherick suffered severe bodily and head injuries. She would suffer permanent disabilities, comprising paralysis of the left arm and leg, complete blindness of the left eye, inability to use the right eye to a greater extent than to distinguish shadows. She would be subject to hallucinations and , would remain oblivious to her sur- | roundings, with deteriorated mental condition, and she was generally in a contused slate. She would require for the rest of her life the attendance of two special nurses and constant medi cal attention. Her car. it was stated, was damaged beyond repair. In his statement of claim F. W Petherick said he had suffered in- ' juries to the body and head and had suffered and would continue to suffer considerable pain and disability as the result of the accident. He was suffering from deafness and could not walk any distance without a stick. He was unable to concentrate to the same extent as previously and was deprived substantially of the enjoyment of lite which he could have bad but for the accident. For the second cause of action lie said he would suffer heavy loss by reason of -his physical condition and financial disabilities because of the j condition ot his wife. He claimed for this £lOOO general damages. As the third cause of action he claimed he would be deprived of the society and services of his wife, for which he sought £5OO general damages.

Waters in his statement, of defence to the first claim admitted that his car came into collision with plaintiffs' car and that he was responsible for the damages caused by the collision. He admitted Mrs Petherick would be permanently disabled but not to the extent alleged. He denied that the car was damaged beyond repair. On the first cause of. action in the husband’s claim Waters admitted also that responsibility for the collision was with him and that the two plaintiffs were injured, but he denied all the other allegations. He gave a general denial to the allegations in the second and third causes of the action. Opening the. case for the plaintiffs, Mr. W. E. Leicester said the collision occurred on a slight bend in the road. Waters’ car. travelling at about. 50 miles an hour, veered out and struck plaintiffs’ car, the speed of which was about 30 miles an hour. It was not suggested that there was any contributory negligence by Petherick. Evidence for the plaintiffs was given by four doctors and seven other witnesses. The citse will proceed tomorrow.