The Welsh Coast Pioneer and Review for North Cambria

Claim Against an Electric Light Company. A Rhyl Lady's Fall and the Result- Action at Mold Assizes. [BY OUR own REPORTER.] AT the Flintshire Assizes, held on Tuesday at Mold before Mr Justice Waiton and a jury, Miss Hollo- way, carrying on business as a confectioner and fruiterer at 61, High-street, Rhyl, sued the Western Electric Light Company, of Woohvich, near Lon- don, the firm who carried out the electric light in- stallation at Rhyl in 1891, to recover £ 100 damages for personal injuries sustained under circumstances related below. Mr Ralph V. Bankes (instructed by Messrs Gamlin and Williams, solicitors, Rhyl) appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Ellis Jones Griffith, M.P. (instructed by Messrs Bromfey Jones and Co., Rhyl) appeared for the defendants. Mr Bankes said the action was brought to re- cover Ctou damages for personal injuries sustained by her owing to the gross negligence of the defendants. In 1901, the defendant company undertook to light Rhyl with electric light, and in course of carrying out the installation they had to erect tremendously high lamp posts to hold the arc lights. These were called standards. On the night of the loth of April, between the hours of nine and ten, the plaintiff was out walking with a friend of hers, and when about to cross the road- way she suddenly (ell over one of the standards which had been left lying in the gutter alongside the path. Miss Holloway sustained serious injuries to her knee, and had to call in medical assistance. She carried on business at Rhyl as a fruiterer, and as the accident happened in the spring she was un- fortunately incapacitated from attending to busi- ness, which had to be managed by her sister. The months of May, June, July, and August were in a place like Rhyl the months when lodging-house keepers and tradesmen made all their profits. Therefore the jury would realise what a loss it was for the plaintiff to be unable to superintend her business. Eventually, she was enabled to walk with the assistance of a stick, but during the season they were deprived of a regular income which they usually derived from visitors. Plaintiff could not take any visitors at all, and they had to employ the services of a young woman in the shop whom they paid at the rate of £ 1 per week. A friend of plaintiff's (Mr Wallis) wrote to the defendants about the case, but no notice was taken of the letter. The case was then put in the hands of Messrs Gamlin and Williams, solicitors, who also wrote to the defendants, and who likewise received no reply. Counsel termed such conduct as extraordinary. Plaintiff's Evidence. Miss Holloway, the plaintiff, then gave evidence. She carried on business as a confectioner at 61, High-street, Rhyl. On the day in question she was walking with a friend opposite 64, High-street, about 10 o'clock in the evening. She said good- night to her and was in the act of crossing the road when she fell over the standard lying in the gutter. There was nothing to indicate the presence of the column, nor was there anything to protect her from falling over. She fell on her hands and knees. When she got up she found she bad tum- bled over one of the electric-light standards. Her right knee was very much hurt and the doctor told her to keep quiet. Plaintiff experienced acute pain in her knee up to July,, up to which time the doctor attended her regularly. During the summer she was unable to carry out her ordinary duties. A girl was hired to attend to the shop, and She and I her sister were unable to take lodgers, as they had done every year. In June she had to go to bed for a fortnight. Mr Griffiths said there was no mention in the claim for loss of lodgers. Mr Bankes said he should amend the claim to that effect. Mr Griffiths said his friend knew it was too late now. The Judge said Mr Bankes could not go into the question now. Mr Bankes What rooms did you let ? Plaintiff: The sitting and two bedrooms. Mr Bankes: And in the busy season there is, I suppose, no limit to the number of people you can put into two bedrooms ? (Laughter.) Plaintiff in the course of further evidence, said she saw the resident engineer about the matter, and he was very unsympathetic. He apologised afterwards. The next occasion she saw Mr Hol- der, he said plaintiff should have a bath chair, and that he would push it. (Laughter.) Afterwards a friend of hers, Mr Wallis, wrote to the company, and then Messrs Gamlin & Williams, her solicitors wrote to them Cross-examined Plaintiff had no chaffing talk with Mr Holder about the bath chair. She was in partnership with her sister. The columns were lying in all directions. She knew the work was going on but she did not know that the standard was lying in the gutter when she went out. She was talking with her friend as they were walking along the street, and when they arrived opposite her friend's shop they did not stand to talk but they said good night. If plaintiff had looked at her feet she could not have seen because it was so dark She found it afterwards because she looked for it. Mr Griffiths But it was lying between two street lamps ? Plaintiff: Yes, but the night was dark and the lamps were far apart. The Judge: Who helped you up ? Plaintiff Twoyoung men I was in great pain. The Judge: Did you go home without troubling very much what you fell over ? Plaintiff: Yes, but I knew it was the column. She said there was no sand or gravel befote the standard. If she had seen it before her, she would have escaped the accident, but she didn't. She bruised one knee and injured the other severely. Plaintiff walked to the doctor's, house on the fol- lowing day. She got the servant to attend to the shop and hired another to look after the house. She paid Ettie Charlton, who looked after the shop, 5s per week. Plaintiff did not suggest that Mr Holder was insulting to her. There was no mark on her knee at the present moment but she suffered pain yet. She had to walk about with a stick. Corroborative Evidence. Mary Jane Ashton, 64, High-street,Rhyl, said she accompanied plaintiff from the Town Hall on the night in question. When witness said "good-night," and turned to go into the house, she heard plaintiff shout and looking back again she saw that Miss Holloway had fallen down. Plaintiff seemed to be in great pain but managed to get up herself. Previous to the accident plaintiff was very active and energetic, but subsequently she had been un- able to go about properly. Cross-examined: Plaintiff was standing with her side to the gutter and when she turned to go away she did not look upon the ground. The lamps did not give enough light to enable them to see the standard lying down. P.C. Tramans, formerly stationed at Rhyl, said, in April he spoke to Mr Holder about the middle of April about keeping the lamps lit at night where they were excavating, The manager replied that theie were not suiffcient lamps. Witness said I shall have to report you if you don't get more lamps.'t Mr Holder then replied," I will get more lamps." There were about five columns lying about the streets with no lamps on at night. After the conversation, more lamps were procured. Witness also spoke to Thomas and Hunt, who were watchmen and in charge, and they said they would speak to Mr Holder. Cross-examined Witness believed Thomas, the watchman, was dismissed because of his complaint. After he complained, the lights were better, but not altogether satisfactory. Still they were not bad enough for him to report the matter. P.O. Hughes, Rhyl, said he remembered the standard lying in the gutter without any light after dark. He told Hunt that he should have more lamps Hunt repiied that he put sand on both sides, but witness said that was not sufficient to prevent people tumbling over it if there was no light. Hunt said Miss Holloway was going to claim Cioo, but that fie could not help it. Cross-examined: Witness had never seen a light on any of the standards after dark, but he did not think it was very serious. If witness had probably looked at the column he would no doubt have seen it, Mr Bankes: Your "official eye" would have seen it in a minute if you had looked ? Witness: Yes. (Laughter.) Mr Bankes: And the other people looked and didn't see it. Mr Griffiths: Because they hadn't an official eye. (Loud laughter.) Mr Wills Jones, photographer, Rhyl, said the distance from the Post Office lamp to the scene of ihe accident was 64 feet, and from the Royal ixotal lamp was much further. The Post Office lamp had frosted glass, and the letters "Post Office" were in red letters. Dr vv. Thomas, surgeon, Rhyl, said he exam- ined Miss Holloway's knee on the 16th of April. It was swollen and inflamed, and. caused pain. Witness attended plaintiff until 26th of July. The limb was swollen, and he put it into plaster. In uy there was not much pain, but it was weak. \,nness exam-ned pla:ntiff's knee two days ago. It was somewhat stiff and painful, and she could not bend it as well as the other one. It was slightly larger than the other one. ."coss-examined: It was not quite r.ght at the end of July. He charged them £3 5s up to the end of August. Dr Lawrence, Rhyl, said the plaintiff's knee was still stiff. There was also a sLght swelling. Gross-exammed There was no rheumatism in the knee because he asked whether she had suf- fered from it. This was the case for the plaintiff. The Defendant's Case. Mr Charles Holder said he was a superin- tendent in the employ of the defendant com- pany, and had charge of the Rhyl contract. The buit end of the standard was 'resting in the gut- ter, and the thin. end rested upon a piece of wood. They used storm lamps at night, with globular side lights. W-tness first met plaintiff in Market-street, and when she compia-ned he passed some sort of a joke because he ha- so many complaints of a similar nature. Shop- keepers said defendants were blocking up their doors and keeping out customers. Cross-examined Witness said Mr Jos. Lloyd, solicitor, had made similar claims upon his com- pany. He was perfectly confident there was a lamp put on the heap of sand near the column. it people went about looking at the stars they should stand still—(laughter)—or at least look where they are going, ,o complaints were made to him about insufficient lighting. Mr Hunt, formerly a toreman in the com- pany's employ, said the standard was put up on the 19th of -ipril. It was taken there on the 15th. Witness described in detail how the stan- dard was barricaded with sand on the night in quest.on, and how he told Oldfield to fix lamps at eiihe'r end. The lamps were placed in posi- tion between nine and ten. The police com- plained to him about no lamps having been put near some of the excavations, and he reported Thomas to Mr Holder, who dismissed him a fort- night after. Cross-examined: There were 17 feet of the column uncovered, but there were two lamps on the column. John W. Oldfield, who was in the company's employ, said there were two lamps, one at either end near the column, one on the sand at the l!lÁn end, and the other at the butt end. There were also two lamps close by, which threw a fairly good light on the column. There were lights there every night, as a matter of fact. Witness was positive about the lights being there on the night in question. A witness named Blythen,. employed at the time in question as a night watchman, said he remembered a lamp at either end of the stan- dard which is lying in the gutter. witness trimmed a number of lamps at the Dudley Arms Hotel. He went round the town looking after the lamps. Cross-examined: He never told a policeman that the round was too b:g for one, and big enough for two. Witness never heard of the ac- cident. In answer to the Judge, witness said nobody need have hurt themselves if they had looked about them. (Laughter.) Mr A. Goodall, town surveyor, Rhyl, said he generally supervised the work. He always saw lamps on the columns at night, although he could not recollect the column in question. Dr Eyton Lloyd, Rhyl, said that on the ust of November he saw plaintiff at her, 'residence in company with Dr Thomas, her own medical man. She explained to witness how she fell over the standard. She bathed her knee that night, and after bearing the pain all n';ght and the following day she went to the doctor. Wit. ness examined the knee. There was no objec- tive symptom at all, but she pointed to a part under the knee cap where it pained. There was no swelling or effusion, and the limb could be bent at right angles. Cross-examined: The knee was always an awkward thing to deal with, but if properly trea- ted and allowed plenty of rest it would get bet- ter. Mr Ellis Jones Griffith, M.P., addressed the, jury at some length for the defence. The first question for them to consider was that of negli- gence. If there had been none on the defend. ant's part, there was an end of it. They might th nk, however, that there had been contribu- tory neg'igence on plaint'ff's part, and on the o'her hand they m:ght think that there was neg- ligence on the defendant's part, in which case the jury would consider what damages plaintiff would be entitled to. With regard to the finan- cial aspect of the case her actual expense* only amounted to a few pounds, whereas she claimed £ 100. Counsel characterised plaint-tt's story as a remarkabe one. Two men assisted to p:,ek her off the ground, and yet they had not been called, a circumstance he never knew to happen in a similar case. He contended that defend- ants had taken reasonable precaution to guard against danger. There waq always a certain amount of danger when. a public authority or company opened up the streets to lay down gas, water, or eiectric mains, and if they exerc.sed reasonable care and forethought they should not be open to any vexatious action. From the evi- dence it was clear y shown that the company had done all that lay in the r power to avert danger to the publ c, and .t 'was, counsel con- tended, very plain that the p'aintiff did not exer. cise reasonable care and precaution herself. His fr end's contention that people were not ob'iged to look where they were going and that ihey could walk about with the'r eyes fixed skywards was astonishing. All he could say was that if people did not look where the were going would soon come to gr ef. Bes des the two 'amps fixed at either end of the standard to warn people what was on the ground, there were in addition two street lamps within a dis'ance of 53 yards, so that it was perfectly obvious that M:s Ash. ton's memory misled her when she sa d that she had actually to grope about looking for the stan- dard. After the Judge's sumnrrig up, the jury gave plaintiff 650 damages and costs.