DUTY OF MOTORISTS

Hokitika Guardian, 10 November 1927, Page 4

DUTY OF MOTORISTS

DRIVING IN CITY STREETS. AUCKLAND, Nov. 9. The degree of care required of a motorist driving in a city street was set out-by -Mr E. ('. C'utton, S.M., in delivering reserved judgment in the Magistrate’s Court. The ease was on in which Phillip Pavlovich, labourer (Mr Dickson), claimed from R. 1 Caddy, butcher (Mr Sullivan), £.’ damages for injuries to himself and damages to his clothing received through being knocked down in Victoria street West at about 8 p.m. on May 2nd by a motor-car driven by defendant.

The -Magistrate said plaintiff crossed the road from the opposite side t:> that clown which defendant was driving and was struck by the defendant’s ear just as he was nearly across the street. He was walking not quite straight across,, hut at a slight angle down the hill, so that his attention was not called to the ear until it was right upon him. It was contended le plaintiff that defendant was driving negligently in that lie was not keeping a proper look-out, as, lmd lie been doing so, he should have been able without difficulty to avoid running into plaintiff.

“ f think that contention must he upheld.” said the Magistrate. “It is true, there is equally a duty upon pedestrians as well as upon motorists to take proper care. If a pedestrian

does anything unexpected, stu b as suddenly stepping off the footpath without looking whether any vehicular traffic- is about, a motorist may he put in a position in which lie cannot avoid an accident.”

The Magistrate said the genera! facts of human conduct must he eon sidered. Where persons apparently walked across the street without looking along the street in the opposite direction a motorist must so drive that ■he is prepared for them. He added : “ Whether the plaintiff was as careful as he should have been does not seem to me in the circumstances here t a (Feet the question o.' the defendant’s liability because the defendant ha every opportunity to avoid an a< ' : dent, and because he was not keeping a sufficiently good look-out he did not avoid it.”

Judgment was given for plaintiff for £'l2 10s with costs.