CLAIM MADE FOR DAMAGES

Press, Volume LXXXII, Issue 24911, 26 June 1946, Page 3

CLAIM MADE FOR DAMAGES

JUDGMENT IN FAVOUR OF DEFENDANT Judgment in favour of the defendant was given by the Magistrate (Mr H. P. La wry, S.M.) when Gweneth Francos Griffiths claimed £lOO general damages and £l7 13s lid special damages from John D. Harrison, alleging that defendant had failed to keep a proper look-out, that he had been travelling too close to the centre of the road having regard to the circumstances pertaining at the time, and that he was travelling at an excessive speed. The plaintiff, a cyclist, had been involved in a collision with a motor-car driven by Harrison. Dr. D. McK. Dickson said that he had examined plaintiff some days after the accident, and she had then a healing scar on her right hand. Massage treatment had been continued for some months. The plaintiff had complained that she could not bend her wrist fully. To Mr C. S. Thomas, who appeared for the defendant, witness said that the hand miglft return to normal.-

In evidence, the plaintiff said she had been cycling along Carlton Mill road and had just started to turn into Hewitt’s road when she was struck by the car. A tram had passed her and was pulling up at the stop when she started to turn. The car was coming towards her and travelling close td the tram at what she thought was excessive speed. She was travelling slowly. The car was about 15 feet away when she first saw it, and though she tried to turn to the left she had no chance of getting out of its way. She was struck by the right side of the car, picking herself up later by the tram line.

To Mr Thomas, plaintiff said she knew the corner well. When she started her turn the tail of the tram was extending about 10 feet over Hewitt’s road. She knew that the .tram .obstructed her view of oncoming" ttafßc,.'bttl did not know that she had to give way to traffic when making a turn. She was blind in the right eye.

Thomas Leopold Francis Griffiths, father of plaintiff, said that he had examined the - scene of the accident next morning and had found a patch of blood about three inches from the tram line. There was no broken glass about. To Mr R. Twyneham, who appeared for plaintiff, he said that the defendant had called at his house next day and had discussed the accident.

The defendant, in evidence, claimed that he had been travelling between 15 and 20 miles an hour, atftut half-way between the crown of the road and the kerb. He said he had no chance of seeing the defendant, as she had putted out from behind the tram. After the accident he went back and assisted plaintiff to a doctor who lived nearby. Cross-examined by Mr Twyneham, he said that as he was driving a small car he considered he had plenty of room to pass between another car parked at the side of the road and the tram. He considered he was about four feet from the plaintiff when he first saw her. Lindsay Margaret Vincent, a nurse, a passenger in the car with Harrison, saief that the speed of the car was not more than 20 miles an hour, and that the vehicle did not swerve in either direction just, before the accident.

The Magistrate said he considered that the accident had been caused by the action of the plaintiff in crossing in front of traffic. She did not signal her intention to turn, and, if she had done so, there had been no evidence brought forward to confirm this. By turning close in by the tram she did so in such a way that the defendant had no chance of seeing her until it was too late.