The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1885-10-24 00:00:00

DAMAGES AGAINST A NEWSPAPER,

In the London Lord Mayor's Court, before Sir T.
Chambers, Q.C., M.P., Recorder, and a special jury, the
case was heard of Oliver v. Mud ford ; the plaintiff, Miss
Jes.ie Oliver, a barmaid, residing at Bridge Chambers,
Queen Victoria-street, E.C., sued the defendants, the
proprietors of the Standard newspaper, to recover
damages for personal injuries sustained through the
alleged negligence of their servant. The defendants,
by th-ir pleadings, denied the negligence as alleged.
Mr. Waddy, Q.C., M.P., and Mr. Marshall Hall were
counsel for the plaintiff, and Mr_ T. R. Kemp, Q.C.,
and Mr. R. Bray for the defendants. From the
evidence it appeared that the defendants were in the
habit of haying messages conveyed by tricycle and
bicycle riders. The plaintiff was a barmaid, and was
employed at the Ship Tavern, Ivy-lane, Paternoster-
row. She did not sleep in the house, but lived in
Queen 'Victoria-street, just near Blackfriars Bridge.
She had finished her day's work, and had returned
home, and, being very intimate with her landlady's
daughter, they went out together to purchase
something for supper. They went along New
Bridge-street into St. Bride-street, and round
into Shoe-lane. They both entered a fish shop, and
having made their purchase the plaintiff came out
first, followed by her companion. According to her
evidence the plaintiff walked to the kerb, and then,
seeing nothing in the road, proceeded to cross over.
In the middle she was knocked down, she did not
know by what, as she saw nothing whatever of the
accident. She received a severe blow on her head,
which caused concussion of the brain. She was ill
for some weeks afterwards. In cross-examination the
plaintiff denied that she ran across the road, or that
she tripped out of the shop and so across the road.
She did not decline to enter a cab and be conveyed to
the hospital. She remembered nothing whatever of
the accident. The plaintiff's friend said that she fol-
lowed closely behind the plaintiff, who, when she
came to the kerb, paused, looked round, and then
tried to cross. A bicycle was coming along slowly,
as the rider had apparently only just mounted. The
head of the bicycle struck the plaintiff, who was
knocked down, the rider himself also falling to the
ground. On behalf of the defendants, the rider of
the bicycle, a young man named Groves was called,
and said he had only just mounted the bicycle when
the accident happened. It was about half-past nine at
night, and there was not another vehicle in the road. He
had a red lamp attached to the front wheel of the
_machine, a bell in his hand, and another at the handle.
These precautions were always taken, or the police
would stop them in their journeys. He had only just
mounted the bicycle when he saw somebody dart
across the road. He applied the brake to such an
exent that it pulled the machine up short, and with
such violence as to throw him. It was not, however,
in time to prevent the plaintiff being struck. The
learned Recorder in summing up said that the law
upon the .case was that if the defendants or their
servant had been guilty of any negligence, then the
plaintiff could recover such reasonable damages as the
jury should think fit to award. If they were of
opinion that the plaintiff and the defendant had
both been guilty of negligence—that was to say, if the
defendant had caused the accident, but the plaintiff
had at all contributed to the accident—then the
plaintiff could not recover. The rider of the bicycle
was quite within his right in riding in the middle of
the road. The plaintiff was quite within her right in
crossing the road. But the law said that
a plaintiff to be entitied to damages must
exetcise reasonable care and precaution in
places of danger. A street-crossing was certainly a
dangerous place, and everyone should be particularly
careful in walking over. Now, the bicycle was pro-
vided with a lamp and two bells as warnings. But
what could they say to persons who would neither
hear nor see warnings in places of danger? The
warnings were rendered useless, and certainly not
through the fault of those who put them there. The
case was whether the defendants' servant ran over
the plaintiff, or whether the plaintiff walked under
the defendants' bicycle. He would ask the jury to
point to anything which the rider of the bicycle had
done which he should not have done, or anything
which he had not done which he should have done.
It had been shown that the rider had actually fallen
from his bicycle in trying to'pull up. Suppose the
young man had died from the effects of the fall, what
would have been the result to the plaintiff ? The
jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, and awarded
£65 damages. Leave to move was given.