HEAVY DAMAGES.

Press, Volume LXVII, Issue 20183, 11 March 1931, Page 5

HEAVY DAMAGES.

MOTOR ACCIDENT CASE. * SUPREME COURT ACTION. Before his Honour Mr Justice Kennedy in the Supreme Court* yesterday, the action was continued in which James Cundy Murray Leo, of Templeton, at present of no occupation, claimed £.1140 damages in respect of a collision on the South road on January 11th,. 1930, from Wright, Stephenson aijd Co., Ltd., grain and seed merchants, and Frederick Otto Schmidt, of Christchurch, salesman, who at the time was in the employ of Wright, Stephenson and Co., Ltd. Mr W. J. Sim appeared for the plaintiff and Mr C. S. Thomas for both defendants. Speed of Oar. Maurice Quinn Ashby, seed cleaner, gave evidence to. the effect that an the day of the accident he was riding in the front seat of Schmidt's car. He saw a motor-cycle come out of a side street about 150 yards ahead. There was no traffic between the two vehicles. The car was travelling at not more than 25 miles per hour, and appeared to be slowly overtaking the other vehicle. When the motor-cyclist began to turn, he was about 10 yards aheaa of the car. He made a very Bharp turn to the right. When nearly across to the centre he stopped., Schmidt turned to the right, applied his brakes, skidded forward in the loose shingle, and struck the motorcyclist, who was standing supporting his machine, with his foot out. Witness heard Lee state that he fonnd himself on the wrong road, and wanted to turn to the left. Although he looked in his mirror he saw no sign of Schmidt approaching. Lee gave no indication of his intention to turn. To Mr Sim: The party in the car were on their way to*finish a job at Springston. The impact took place in the deep shingle in the middle of the road. Lee was about ten yard 3 ahead of the motor-car when he commenced to turn. Had Schmidt continued straight pn there would still, inl.witness's opinion, have been an accident. Sydney Avant, labourer, of Hornby, said that on the day of the accident] while driving a truck, he saw the car stopped well over on its correct side! Schmidt asked him to take notice of the shingle. . He saw that the car had skilled from three to four yards. He took notice of the marks of the motorcycle, which were on the correct side. Lee had borne off to the left, andthen tai:en a sharp turn to the right. He judged from the marks that the motorcycle had been pushed about a foot. To Mr Sim: Witness had made-state-ments to Schmidt, but had refused to assist Lee similarly.

Tests of Brakes. Hugh E. Kennett, garage proprietor, stated that he had examined the car and, found that at 25 miles an hour it was able to pull up in from 39 feet to 40 feet. The brakes were in good order. To Mr Sim: The tests were carried out a few days ago. The application of the brakes during the tests -could not have, been more severe.

Arthur John Archibald, garage proprietor, and John S; Hawkes, secretary of the Canterbury Automobile Association) corroborated the evidence of the. previous witness. j

Herbert Longdon, foreman for Jones Bros., motor-cycle dealers, said that he carried out tssts with an A.J.S, machine that morning. With the handle bars six inches from the tank ,he had made a circle of 11 feat 3 inches, while travel* ling at five'miles an how. This concluded the evidence. Counsel's Addresses. Addressing the Court, Mr ' Thornpg said that negligence on the part ; of Sohmidt had to be proved by the other aide. ' He asked the jury sot to regard the case from the point' of view of sympathy with Lee, who had had a bad time, but to loqk at the question according to the facts presented, Thefaot .that plaintiff did not proceed against defendant for six months was significant. He submitted that there was no evidence .of negligence on the of Schmidt, and that -or the other hand Schmidt had (had his car under reados> able control. It had been proved that plaintiff did not >see.,the approach of Schmidt and had failed to put out his hand to indicate that he wap about toturn, Therefore he was clearly guilty of contributory negligence. _ • , Mr Sim said that the jury had been asked to;draw an inference against plaintiff because -he jlid' not'brtig'fbr-' ward any claims against defendant tor six months. As p, matter .«f, fact Jiee been, in hospital for months ai>d .had 'fttß' to undergo (tit opM&tiojv, ■ Judge sa|.d that negligence iwas the faijure to exercUe.all ifcat care that *wosld be by ordinary rs&* Perhaps the jury ;W<W <-fold both plaintiff and defendant §!s*& nejpigefrK >'II bo t the one who had !she _ lasts oiportjKnJltyi „of avoiding the Wife responsible; mwUM Mkpy : # s Mi&fclff. > T)u» jury found that defendant was negligent in sot keeping a proper look* BThg ß Thg negligence of'the defffldonfi ■■Hh&jvnMHh eteld&mAges); With costs according to, scale, witnesses' expanses and monts to be fixed by the Begistrar. Tfis Judge certified for the second day at £ls 15s, and he declared the defend* ant jointly and severally liable.