NEGLIGENCE CHARGE

Hawke's Bay Herald-Tribune, Issue 34, 24 February 1937, Page 5

NEGLIGENCE CHARGE

Father Claims Damages For Death of Son FATAL COLLISION 1 Allegations that negligent driving caused the death of his son Abraham on May 8, 1936, were made by Karipa Wall, a settler. of Taupo, against Henry Richard Murray, a contractor, of Hastings, in a Supreme Court claiin fo-r £2000 damages at Napier this morning before Mr Justice Ostler and a jury. The hearing, which was still in progress when the Herald-Tribune went to press this afternoon, is a seqixel to a collision between Muxray's motor iorry and Abrabam Wall's motor cycle on the main road at Mangatahi on May 8, as a result of which Abraham Wall died of injuries. Murray denied. the charge of negligent driving, but submitted as an alternative defence that, if negligence were proved against him, plaintiff's son was also guilty of negligence. Mr E. J. W. Hallett appeared on behalf of Wall, while Messrs H. B. Lusk and W. Selwyn Averill represented Murray. The following jury Was empanelled: — ^Messrs W. Anderson (foreman), F. E. Carter, T. O. Bew, F. V. Apperley, A. F. Hunt, W. Chapman, R. H. W, Osborne, A. Dykes, L. B, Dickenson, L. C. Minett, H. Cushing and J, W. Foster. On Mhy 8, 1936, claimed the plaintiff, hi& Bon Abraham was riding his motor-cycle along the highway at Mangatahi, near Hastings, when the defendant's motor lorry cOllided with him. His son Buffer'ed. injuries the result of the accident and died later the sameevening. The' death of plaintiff's son, it was alleged, was due to the negligent driving of „the defendant, who failed to' keep a proper look-out and was driving on the wrong side of the road and without sufficient lighta attached " to his motor lorry. As the result of his son's death, the plaintiff submitted, he had suifered the ioss of reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit to be derived from Abraham 's death. During his son's lifetime the plaintiff received financial benefits and a^sistance and arrangements had been made for this to continue, had the son still been alive, because it had been arranged that the son would farm lands owned by him and would provide a home for the plaintiff. For these reasons, the plaintiff claimed from the defendant the sum of £2000 damages. The defendant admitted the collision between the lorry and the motor-cycle, but • denied that the accident and subsequent death of the plaintiff's son was due to his (defendant 's) negligence. As an alternative defence, the defendant urged that, if any negligence were proved against him, the plaintiff's son was .also negligent in that he was riding an unlighted motor-cycle at an excessive epeed and was not keeping a proper look-Out when approaching the defendant 's lorry. Moreover, tha cyclist, who Had a pillion rider with him. did not have his machine 3nnder "control at the time of the accident. (Proceeding.)