HUTT ROAD COLLISION

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 220, 11 June 1921, Page 12

HUTT ROAD COLLISION

DAMAGES CLAIMED FROM MOTORIST WAS THE GIG-LAMP LIT? An aftermath of a collision which, occurred between a motor-car and n gig on the Hutt Road on the night of October 2 last, was a claim for damages, which was heard in the Supremo Court ycstercliy bifore His Honour Mr. Justice Salmon and a jury of twelve. James Richard Croft, undertaker, of L’etone, claimed from Guy Leslie Fulton, of Wellington, merchant, damages amounting to A’563 ss. for alleged, negligence. The motor-car was driven by Fulton, and the gig driven by the plaintiff, who was accompanied by a man named lluskisson. Tile latter was injured by the collision, and his subsequent death in hospital was responsible for the Crown bringing a manslaughter charge against Fulton, who was acquitted after standing his trial in the Supreme Court. Huskisson’s death had no bearing whatsoever on tlie present ease. Yesterday Air. H. F. O’Leary represented the plaintiff, and Air. A. Gray, K.C. (with him Air. D. 11. Hoggard) the defendant.

The plaintiff, in his statement of claim, alleged that he had, as a result of the defendant's negligence in driving his automobile, his excessive rate of speed, and his failure to keep a proper lookout and. to give warning of his approach, suffered special damages amounting to jCIGS ss. Details of the special damages concerned loss of horse and eart, ,£Gfl; damage to clothing, .£2O; doctor’s expenses, ; loss of profits for six weeks, .£6O. Plaintiff claimed as general damages, 4MOO. The statement of defence admitted the accident, but denied tlXit Fulton had been guilty of negligence. The defence alleged that the plaintiff had been guilty of contributory negligence, in that he had failed, to have attached to his gig, "proper lights, or any light showing to the rear.” The evidence heard during the day was similar to that adduced during the manslaughter proceedings. The plaintiff and various witnesses contended that the repr lamp on the gig was alight at the time of the collision; and that, negligence was patent in Fulton's not being able to see any lamp. It was admitted that the gig lamp—produced in court, bettered a'.nd bout by the collision —was a "right-hand” lamp, which had boon fastene.il to the left side of the vehicle. The case for the defence will be heard to-day, when Fulton will give evidence. \ '