COLLISION OF VEHICLES

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 265, 5 August 1919, Page 9

COLLISION OF VEHICLES

JUDGMENT FOR RESPONDENTS.

His Honour the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) delivered .reserved judgment yesterday morning iir tho caso of Neil Sorensen, of Wellington, waterside worker, appellant, and J; O'Brien and Co., respondents. This was a case in which' tho appellant as plaintiff claimed ,£B3 ss. for injuries received front a collision which occurred between himself while riding a bicycle and the respondent's lorry. When ' tho case wa3 heard in the Magistrate's Court, •Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M., gave judgment for tho defendants, and tho questions ■submitted to His Honour were: (1) two witnesses who were not examined in- the Magistrate's Court should be allowed to givo evidence, and (2) whether the-finding of the Magistrate in point of fact was correct.

■ In his judgment, His Honour said that with - regard to the tiro witnesses referred to there was ample opportunity afforded for culling them, but tho plaintiff evidently relied .upon what he considered tho strength of his. case, as both tho witnesses and the nature of their evidence were known to (lie parties, and no adjournment was asked for. His Honour remarked that it would be over-ruling a long line of decided eases were tho Court to allow them to bo called now. "As to tho second question, tho Court is asked to decide .whether the Magistrate's finding on fact was wrong. Even if tho lorry of tho defondant wore travelling on tho wrong sido of the' road, there was nothing to prevent tho appellant from seeing and avoiding it. Tho appellant in iuy opinion was either travelling too fast or failed to maintain a proper look out, or else possibly he chose to attempt to pass the lorry, thus acting as jio prudent man should act, and running a risk that .was unnecessary." Tho appeal was dismissed, but in view or-the fact that respondent was driving on tho wrong side of tho road, and although that was not tho cause of the accident, it might.have been justification for litigation, His Honour allowed half costs («C4 is.) t only. At tho haaijing, Mr. H. P. O'Leary appeared for the appellant, and Mr. E. 15,I 5 , Hay for the. respondents.