CLAIM FOR DAMAGES

Hokitika Guardian, 17 December 1924, Page 1

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES

COLLISION AND THE SEQUEL. GK ICY MOUTH, Dee. Hi. A collision between a motor-ear belonging to Newman Bros., and driven by James Wright, and a motor cycle and side ear, belonging to Arthur Trudgeon, of Christchurch, on the Gl'cyl noutli-Mok l lika road on January Dth. last, on the Grey mouth side of the Three Mile Hotel, was responsible for a claim for damages being laid against Newman ros .by. Arthur Tniilgoon, t mechanic), of Stanley St.. Sydenham. The ease was heard at the Magistrate's Court yesterday. Plaintiff claimed Hie sum of £T>O “damages sustained v.v reason of the defendant company, through its servant. negligently and unskilfully driving a motor-ear on a public highway.” The motor-ear, plaintiff contended, ran into the plaintiff's cycle, anil overturned it. Plaintiff was thrown out and severely injured, medical attention having to he summoned. Plaintiff’s clothing was also much damaged. The damages plaintiff claimed were made up as follows:—Repairs to motor cycle and side ear £ll. medical expenses Co. damage to clothing £lO, and general damages COO. Mr W. ,f. Joyce appeared for plaintill' and -Mr .1. A. .Murdoch (Hokitika) for defendants. Air Joyce said the defendant firm went under different names, such as Newman's. .Newmans Motors Ltd. and Newman Bros., and White Star Line.

At the lime of the accident plaintifi was on the right side of the read, but the vehicle of the defendant ran right into the cycle. A friend of the pin inti If. n Mr Holloway was riding in the side ear. Mr Holloway was hurt, and had to he removed to Hokitika where lie was compelled to remain for some time. Several letters on the matter were sent to the defendants, hut all the reply received was to the effect that they were endeavouring to make arrangements with the insurance company. Mr Holloway had been seriously ill since the accident and had eventually died, although the accident was not the direct cause of (lentil. On making a search it "as eventually found that Newman’s Motors Ltd. was not registered. On the window of the defendant firm at Hokitika the word Ltd. had been scratched out. The defendants, counsel contended, had not endeavoured to come to a satisfactory finality. Arthur Trnilgeon. tlie plaintiff said he came to the "West, Coast last Xmas in a motor-cycle and side-car. He was :icconi|i,allied hv ATr Holloway. On the Greymonth side of the Three Mile hotel. while travelling about twenty miles an hour, a motor ear ran info witness’s vehicle. The motor car was travelling in the same direction. Witness was on the right side, hut the ear, notwithstanding that it hail plenty of room to pass, swerved into the motor cycle. The ear hit the handle ol witness’s machine, overturning it. Witness was thrown out. and Holloway was pinned under the side car. The driver of the motor ear said “evervthiug was alright.” The driver of the motor ,-ar said they were going to the races. The ear went on for about -10 yards after Ihe accident before it was pulled up. Witness had to attend to Holloway, ns the occupants of the car drove on. Afterwards witness saw Mr Newman, who expressed regret at the accident. Mr Newman told witness that he would fix the motor-eyrie if witness liked to leave it with him (Mr Newman). Witness rclnrnc<l to Chiisl-rliMi't-h with Mr Holloway. Defendant had written to witness once concerning the matter, hut since then witness had heard nothing nltire concerning the matter. Witness had to he X-rayed as a result of the accident, the expenses coining to £ll. Mit ness also h;t'd ;t suit, ami overall suit and a shirt destroyed. The total damage in this direr-t ion being L'K*. lie had also lost four days' work. The motor-cycle was also depreciated ill value to the extent of £2O.

To Air Murdoch: The accident occureil through the carelessness of t..ie driver. The road was wide where the collision occurred. The time was about K o'clock iii the morning. Witness would say that it was ridiculous to nltribute the cause of the accident In witness swerving. The motor car was travelling over forty miles an hour. Bicharil Henry Wakcliu. said that on December Dili, last he witnessed the •accident. The vehicles were on the Hokitika road, and were coming towards Grcvuiouth. The cycle and sidecar were in Iron!. The motor ear which was coining behind, seemed to swerve suddenly into the motor-ey Te hitting the handles and upsetting ii. The motor cycle wys on the right side of the mad. The tracks of the ear showed there had been a decid'd swerve. To Mr Murdoch: Witness could not sav what part of the motor ear hit the evele. lint lie would say it was the side ~'f the ear. He was absolutely certain the car swerved in and hit the motorcycle. John Keys, a brother-in-law of the late Mr Holloway, said on the morning of the accident witness received a telephone message stating that Truilgenn and Holloway had met with an accident. Witness went to the scene of the accident and found that the cycle anil side chair had been upturned oil Ihe left-hand side of the road. The evde tracks were well on the lelt-halid side of the road. The molor-cnr tracks indicated that the car had swerved in towards the cycle and side ear. There was considerable damage to the motorevele.

This concluded the ease for the plaintiff.

Mr Murdoch for Hie defence contend that the driver of the ear was not driving quickly, anil was mil aware that the car had come into contact with the cycle until he Imd gone on some yards after the collison. The driver of the cycle, counsel contended, had misjudged his distance and had turned the cycle into the motor-car. This was how the accident had occurred.

■lames Wright, the driver ol the motor-car in question, save* evidence for llie defence. lie was driving at a speed ol between fifteen and oighteen miles per hour. Witness was not hurrying into lfeetlon to catcli the train. Witnes was on the lolt hand side of the road. T'otil lie passed the cycle witness had a clear view of the cycle and side-car. The hack step of tile car came into contact with the motor-cycle. r lhe first part of the cm had safely passed the motor-cycle. Prior to the impact witness had not swerved in toward the motor-cycle. The man on the motor-cycle had swerved too soon. Witness did not know that his car had touched the cycle until he was told. To Mr Joyce; Witness did not know that the cycle and side-car were carried a considerable distance. Mr Jovco: It must have keen a considerable' impact to carry the cycle and chair that distance and overturn them, and yet you say that you did not feel the impact. Witness: 1 felt nothin". Continuing witness said he was not aware of one of his passengers coming up to him after the accident and saving “ Hurry up. or we will miss e races.” Witness was allowing the plaintiff four feet., when the motorJar passed the cycle. All ness had lieeu driving for two and a half Witness had never had any accident on the Otiivw Road. Tie. arrived at Iteefton at 11.45 on the morning in question. There were a large niimbei of passengers oil the car. To Air Murdoch: Witness was positive he did not swerve into the cycle and side-car. Tin’s was the first accident witness had had. J Dowell, one of the passengers in the car, gave evidence similar to that of the previous witness. He stat

ed that the driver of the car was going at a reasonable pace, and was driving very carefully. •James Wright, a farmer residing at Boss, corroborated the evidence of the previous two witnesses. Evidence was also given by Robert Parker. Charles Roderick Newman, part proprietor of tlie motor car in question, gave formal evidence. . DAMAGES FOR PLAINTIFF. Al ter the luncheon adjournment, 11 is Worship commenced his summing up. There was some considerable conflict of opinion (as supported by the evidence) as to what had happened to cause the accident. Plaintiff had stated that he was driving Ii is cycle at about 20 miles an hour, and that the defendant's motor car had swerved into his evele, causing the ear to turn a com.plete somersault. That statement had been supported by the witness Wakcliu, who had stall'd that the evele and sideear were well on the left hand side of the road, and that there were fourteen clear feet for the car to pass. On the other hand the evidence ol the driver of the car showed that the fact that his attention was drawn to the overturned car was the first he knew of the accident. .Several of the witnesses for the defence had stated that the driver of defendant’s car was driving cyteluMv. The, question was who m to I"- held ic snonsiblc for the ac ( ideal. Several ol the witnesses for the defence did not seem to have much knowledge its In what sliced the car was travelling at. The motor-car was a K! passenger ear, and was. no doubt, much more difficult to handle than an ordinary car. The car was a clumsy allair, and such being the ease, ihe onus was much more on the driver to see that he had thorough dearsince before passing the cycle and side-ear. The witness Wakcliu Hot' the plaintifi), his Worship held, was in a belter position to see what had happened than those who were in the motorcar. The statli'.enl by the deleuco that the motor cycle had swerved into the motor ear. was, in his AYorship's opinion, very improbable, and it- was not likely tliat the plaintifi' would lisk liis own life by swerving info a big. lumbering vehicle such ns defendant s car. lie was satisfied tlmt the car must have been going at a oonsidornhle speed and that the driver of the car misjudged the distance between his car and the cycle. The driver of the cycle had done all lie could to avert a collision. The cycle was on the right side of the road, therefore the onus was oil tin' driver of the ear io see that there was sulliricnt distance between the car and the cycle In allow him to pass safely. The witness Wakcliu. who was behind both vehicles had stated that the car swerved into the cycle, and lie. his Worship held, was in a better position to judge what happened than those in the ear. TTis Worship allowed plaintiff damages amounting to CB7 Kis with costs.