DANGEROUS SPOT LIGHT

Hokitika Guardian, 15 February 1927, Page 4

DANGEROUS SPOT LIGHT

CHRISTCHURCH, Fob. 12. Rather important comment upon the use of only a spot-light for lighting purposes on a motor-cycle was made by .Mr C. U. Orr-Walker, S.M.. when delivering his reserved judgment at the Ashburton Magistrate's Court yesterday morning. The case was the one in which Robert Frederick Lynn (Mr A. K. North) claimed the sum of £l5O a.s special damages and £3l 2s as general damages from Charles William Fyno Shearman, a clerk of Ashburton (Mr C. S. T homas), for. injuries alleged to have resulted from the negligence of defendant in driving his motorcycle over the plaintiff in Walnut

terrace ill itlioiit 7.45 on tlie evening of August. IStli. The pluintifF whs walking along the roadway at, tho time. The jnclyrnu > iit. stated: “I am satisfied (hat this is ei ease, which, in the absence of explanation, pointed to negligence on the part of the defendant. Tho plaintiff was exercising his right to walk along tho roadway towards the left side comparatively nenr tiie grass border and the defendant was overtaking the plaintiff at a. pace, according to himself, from 15 to ‘2O miles an hour, and hlul a, light on his motorcycle. There was a conflict of evidence as Lo what the plaintiff actually did just prior to the accident, but he gathered from the evidenee that the plaintiff was walking .along the road near to the left edge and having heard and seen the cycle coming eased ofT a little more to the left. The cycle was hearing down on him, and, no doubt, instinct directed him to jump further to the left, but he was too late to Invoid the cycle. Contributory negligence must he proved by defendant, and, in my opinion, ho certainly lias not "proved it. It was plain that it tiro defendant was keeping a good look out. and had his cycle properly lighted, he must have seen the hoy long before reaching him. and could have avoided him. Defendant’s evidence gives the explanation of his not seeing the hoy. It came out in Court that his ordinary I lamp was not in order, and he was using a spot-light, which showed a small, sharp beam striking the road at a distance of some 40 yards aheadshowing nothing on tho road unless the object came within its sharp beam. The use of tho spot-light is. I believe, the explanation why defcmVuit did not have a view of the hoy ahead of him. A light such as this is perhaps worse than no light at all. for a pedestrian would hear an unlighted cycle and promptly get out of its way, whereas, seeing the cycle had a light, and reasonably believing he could be seep, he would lie lulled into a false sense of security and continue on his way. T must find that defendant ufas guilty of—negligence and the reckless usi of the road, and thus caused the injuries to tho plaintiff. Judgment was given for plaintiff for £3l 7s 6d special damages. £25 general damages, and costs £9 16s.