SEQUEL TO A COLLISION.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1179, 14 July 1911, Page 8

SEQUEL TO A COLLISION.

MOTOR AND BICYCLE. ■V sequel to a street collision at Dunedin rtiichcd the Court of Appeal yesterday. Uio •■parties being John Martin Samson (hppcllant) and Louisa May Aitchison (respondent). _ .-, , The plaintiff in the Supremo Court action (now respondent) was a schoolteacher, She was' riding a bicycle in Princes Street, Dunedin, when she came into collision with a, motor-car in.which the defendant (now appellant), a Dunedin auctioneer, was seated. She sustained severe bodily injuries, and her bicycle was badlv smashed. She claimed XIOOO damages, and stated that she was serially injured, was" still suffering groat pain, had been put to .much expense, for surgical and medical attendance, nursing, etc.. would be prevented from pursuing her occupation for some time longer, and li.id lost the use of her bicycle and damaged apparel. She alleged that the collision was due to the carelessness of the defendant, miller whoso control tho car was at the time of the accident, though actually operated by Albert Allison Collins. Defendant denied the alleged carelessness, and said that' Collins was driving the car, not under his control, nor for his purposes. The jury were unanimously nsiceil m bringing in a verdict for plaintiff on the grounds of want of ordinary skill and care on the part of defendant at the time V.f the accident, and (hey allowed ,£750 damages. Questions relating to the liability of the defendant or his companion, Collins, were re.-eryed for the Judge (Mr. Justice Williams), who upheld the verdict against the defendant. In giving reasons for this judgment, his Honour stated (bat the car was owned by the defendant, who was negotiating for the sale of it to a widow lady, Mrs. Cnilins, who with her son and the* defendant went a drive in the cay, as the Collinses wished for a trial of it beforo purchasing. Defendant first drove the car, and then Collins. Wliilo Collins was driving it the accident occurred. There was no.evidence of actual personal negligence on the part of Samson, and his Honour left to tho jury tho question of negligence en the part of Collins, the only question left to his Honour being that of Samson's liability for.the negligence of Collins, and ho had power to draw inferences from the fads. lie found, as already stated, that the damages assessed by the jury should be paid by Sanison, and the latter appealed. Counsel were: Mr. A. S. Adams, with him Mr. W. G. Hay, for the appellant; .Mr. Jl. C. Chapman, K.C., with him Mr. A. C. Hanloii, for the respondent. Mr. Adams had not concluded his argument when the Court adjourned until 10.30 to-day.