CLAIM FOR DAMAGES

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 10700, 22 August 1912, Page 5

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES

RESULT OF MOT OK CAR ACCIDENT.

(By l e'&}f(iph Fress Association.J

WELLINGTON, Last Night. Mr Justice Edwards and a jury of four were occupied in the Supreme Court to-day in hearing a claim for £350 damages for injuries received through a motor car accident. The ]) hull tiff was Chow \o Quin. chemist, of Wellington, and defendant George Pinnock, taxi-cab owner, Wellington. Mrs Pinnock had also been joined iii the action, but by agreement of counsel the case against her was not proceeded with. Mr T. W. Wilford appeared for plaintiff, and Mr 0. Beere foi\ the defendant.

It was alleged in the statement of claim that on June I4th, 1912, the defendant, George Pinnock, drove a taxi-cab so carelessly and negligently that lie struck plaintiff, who was crossing the street, and causing him severe hn.-d permanent injuries, namely the breaking of two ribs and a permanent injury to the left arm above the elbow.

Mr Wilford. in opening the caso for plaintiff, said that the plaintiff was over sixty years of age, and had been a resident in Wellington for about 20 years. At the time of the accident ho was crossing Lower Taranaki Street when a car, driven by defendant, swung round from Court-en ay Place at a furious pace. Defendant was driving to catch a train, and his pace was from 17 to 20 miles an hour. He did not sound the horn, and plaintiff was given no warning of the approach of tho car. In consequence of the accident the plaintiff was now quite broken up.

George Pinnock in his statement of defence admitted that the plaintiff was struck by a taxi-cab driven by him. He denied that he had driven the car carelessly, or negligently. He also denied that Chow Yo Quin's injuries were severe or permanent. He denied that bodily injury suffered by Chow Yo-Quin had put the latter to any expense, and said that the alleged damage (if any) wag caused by tho negligence of Chow Yo Quin, in crossing the street without exercising usual' and reasonable circumspection. If there war; no negligence on tho plaintiff's part, then the alleged damage (if any) arose from an inevitable accident, and was caused by the plaintiff. suddenly stepping backwards in front of the defendant's car, which was passing him at a slow speed. A large number of witnesses wore examined, and the jury retired at 4.45 p.m. They returned at 5.5 p.m. with a verdict for plaintiff for £75 damages.