A COLLISION.

Press, Volume LIV, Issue 16147, 27 February 1918, Page 4

A COLLISION.

CLAIM FOR £1000 DAMAGES

CHRISTCHURCH SOLICITOR

SUED

The sequel to a collision between a motor-car and a motor-cycle near the Sunnysido Mental Hospital, on July 22nd last, occurred in the Supreme Court yesterday, when Henry Busch. contractor, oi Hornby, claimed £1000 damages, and £'33 18s expenses from David Bates, solicitor, of Christchurch. The case was heard before his Honour Mr Justice Chapman, and a jury of twelve. Mr Grcsson appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr S. G. Raymond, K.C., wth him Mr Rowe, fo» the defendant. . I The facts as set forth in the plaintiff's claim were to the effect that while plaintiff was riding on a motor-cycle with side-chair towards Hornby abo.it <3.30 p.m., on July 2-' nd, he encountered the defendant on the -Middle Lincoln road, driving a motor-ear towards town. The car collided with the motor-cycle, with the result t'nnt plaintiff received .such injuries that his right had to be amputated at the liip, and lie was for four months in the Christchurch Hospital. He alleged that the collision was due to negligence on the part or the defendant, in that he had insufficient lights, was on his wrong side of the road, aud was not 111 proper control of his car. Mr Gresson briefly outlined tae case oil these lines, and explained that owing to a defect in his lamp, tho rubber generator ring being broken, the plaintiff, who was accompanied by his son, had no light, while Bates had no head light, and only ono side-light. As far as that was concerned, said Mr Pressor., both parties wore at fault, and if the matter rested there, tilings would be equally balanced, but he intended to prove that, the accident could have been averted if Bates had used ordinary care. Bates had subsequently admitted that the had seen the cycle when within LO yards of it. It would also l>e proved that the motor-cycle was as far on its proper side of the road as possible, bhoir-'h this was a matter on which theic would he a strong conflict of evidence. The plaintiff, who stated that he was 40 years of age, ami Had six children, said ho had been riding a motor-cycle for nine years, and was an expert rider. He described the accident, and stated that when he first sighted the car it was about two chains away. He pulled as far over to his loft as possible, blew his horn, and both he and his son calleu cub a warning to the approaching car. Alter -he accident, when witness lound his leg was broken, ho heard , the defendant and his companion trying to -tart their car further down the road, and he called to them for assistance. They might not have heard him, out he called three times before they answered, and the car was then backed to where witness lay. However, it could not be got to steer, and witness was later taken to the Hospital by a passing motor-cyclist. When witness was in the Hospital, Bates came to see him, and remarked that he saw the. motor-cycle when 20 yards awav. \v itness was now quit© unable to follow his occupation of contractor. Both machines were travelling about the same pace, a medium or slow pace, at the timo of the accident In answer to Mr Raymond, witness said that when the motor-cycle met the car, tho latter was well over on its wrong side. . William Henry Busch, the sixteen-vear-old son of the plaintiff, who was In the plaintiff's side-car when the accident occurred, gave similar evidence as to the accident, and added that next morning he had returned to the spot to examine the marks. He lo* J* 1 track of the cycle, but not that of the side-car. as it was in the grass on the left of "the road. The tt-acks of botH car and cycle at the place of .the co - lision, and past it, were within about 7 feet of the hedge, which wa® on tLcvcle's proper side of the road. *Tn answer to Mr Raymond, wit .«• said it was just about uusk when t!.o accident occurred Be various other minute details regaidmg tne Busch, wife of the gave evidence m support ol plamtitt s Ca, rhc statement of defence was to the effect that defendant denied was owing to lus negligence that the collision took place, nil the suggested acts of negligence being denied. It vas, further alleged by the defendant that the collision was paused by the plaintiff's negligence, m that (a) no drove his motor-cycle at an excessive speed without lights and on the wront, side of the road; .(b) lie failed to keep a proper look-out, anci that he was unskilled and negligent in the management and handling of the motor-eye e. Mr Ravmond. in opening for the, defence, said that there would be a sharp conflict of evidence between the witnesses for th.e plaintiff and those for this defendant. On July -2nd, a little after o p.m., defendant and Mr his passenger, were returning to Christchurch from Rollcston. At feockburn defendant lit his side and tail lamps, one aide lamp burning more clearly than tho other. Defendant entered tho mid-Lincoln road, and was driving at a moderate pacc, at about 15 miles per hour. Approaching Curlett's road, close to tho scene of tho accident, defendant was on his proper side of the middle of the road. When some distance awav he saw a cycle and sidecar, without lights, coming along at u very considerable speed on the wrong side of tho road. On noticing the cycle, the defendant drew over to his proper side of the road, got right on the grass, and slowed down almost to a standstill. The plaintiff pulled off slightly, but notwithtanding defendant's precautions, hu struck | the end of the axle of . the j off front wheel. The accident ! happened on defendant's side of the ! road. Aft>-? the accident, defendant's car would not reply to the stcerinci gear, and' therefore it was impossible to take the plaintiff to the Hospital. An inspection of the tracks next morning showed that the car had been on its proper side of the rond. David Bates, the defendant, gave similar details as to the accident. His two side-lights, lie said, were lighted, and also his tail lamp. His front electric headlights were not working. His pace at no time exceeded 15 miles per hour. The mid-Lincoln road was a very narrow one, having practically only a driving track. He was driving slightly on his own side approaching Curlett s road, and he then noticed a motorcycle without lights coming towards him. In his opinion the motor-car was goinc much slower than the cycle. The motor-cycle was distinctly on its wrong • side. Defendant did not sound his ' horn, as his attention was directed to ' other parts of his car. J...Robertj...Robert Nairn, who was in defendant s ■ car at the time of the accident, gave similar evidence. He considered that tho plaintiff was driving at the rate of about 30 miles per hour at the time of the accident, and was, a: the time, talking to his son. In reply to Mr Raymond, witness said that he was quite certain that the plaintiff did not blow his horn. At this stage the case was adjourned until 10 o'clock this morning, tne jury expressing its desire to view the place of the accident.