SEQUEL TO MOTOR CAR ACCIDENT.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLV, Issue 2656, 8 November 1923, Page 3

SEQUEL TO MOTOR CAR ACCIDENT.

BETTY V. OONLAN. SUPREME COURT TRIAL. CL \TM FOR DAMAGES FAILS. The hearing of a claim for damages alleged to have arisen through a motor collision near the intersection of Duncan St. and the Lady’s Mile, Foxton, on the night of January 28th, 1923, as the result of which V. C. Betty sustained severe injuries to his leg, was heard at the Palmerston N. Supreme Court vesterday before His Honour, Mr Justice MacGregor. The plaintiff was Victor Carroll Betty, of Foxton, labourer, and the defendant John Conlan, of Himatangi, farmer, plaintiff claiming £SOO general damages and £SO special damages. Mr Hollings appeared for plaintiff and Mr Cooper for defendant. The following jury was empanelled: Messrs H. C. Collinson (foreman), J. Tantrum, D. C. Clifford, E. Palmer, F. Holland, W. L. MaePherson, G. C. Osborne, C. Christansen, E. Osborne, G. Remington, W. Braxton and R. Stewart.

The statement of claim alleged that on or about January 28, 1923, defendant, by carelessly and negligently driving his motor ea,r along the Beach road, Foxton, knocked down and injured plaintiff, who sustained a compound fracture of the leg, which had incapacitated him from following his employment and necessitated hospital, medical and olher expenses, and inflicted upon him severe pain, suffering and inconvenience. Plaintiff therefore claimed £SOO general damages, £2O hospital expenses, £3 car fare to hospital, and £3O loss of wages, a total of £553 14s. The statement of defence admitted a collision between plaintiff and a motor cor driven by defendant, hut denied that the latter carelessly or negligently drove the car, or that the collision was in any way caused by him. It was denied that plaintiff was injured to the extent alleged in the statement of claim, and the defence contended that the collision was due lo the alleged negligence of plaintiff in eoming upon the road, without warning, immediately in front of the car driven by defendant, which was proceeding at a slow pace, with all lights properly on, along the road, to Foxton. As air alternative, the statement for defenee set out that, if the collision was not due to the negligence of the plaintiff, it was due to an inevitable accident.

Drs. Wvllie and Barnett, gave evidence. as to the nature and extent of the injuries sustained by the plaintiff. Prior to the calling of evidence, a. plan of the.road in the vicinity of the accident was produced, and frequent reference was made to this in order to define to the jury the details of the affair. THE PLAINTIFF’S CASE. Plaintiff gave evidence that he had been returning with a young lady, whom he had since married, from the pictures at Foxton on the night in question. The young lady’s parents were walking some distance in front when they—plaintiff and the young lady—descried two motor cars passing one another some distance along a road from an intersection which they were approaching. The car eoming in witness’s direction dimmed its lights as it passed the other ear hut, switched them on again as it approached the intersection of three roads where witness and the young lady waited on a grass strip until the motors should have passed. As the car came towards them with its dazzling lights, it swerved in towards them was struck witness, who had pushed the young lady aside to a safe position. The accident was due to defendant’s carelessness, alleged witness, who also alleged that the car, which was travelling at 25 to 30 miles an hour, had swerved light on to the grass at the roadside. He detailed the injuries and expenses the accident had occasioned to him, and gave the yeasons on which he based the claim for damages, stating that he was still suffering from the .effects of the accident.

To Mr Cooper plaintiff said that he was conscious after the accident until defendant went to get medical aid. Witness was not carried to the grass by the roadside—he lay there after being struck. Charles Symonds .gave evidence as to having' arrived irtr the scene of the accident shortly after it occurred, and seeing plaintiff; lying'injured op the grass by the roadside. The car, if in order, he said, could have been stopped within fifteen, yards if travelling at from 25 to 30 miles an fiour. itef erring- to arpian of'the local--iLy, Mr Bollings said tfiat defendant must have'seen plant till and hiis companion two ■ chains oft’, whereupon witness commented that the car could have been stopped with case fd half that distance. Plaintiffs wife, giving evidence, said mat she had been returning from a theatre with plaintiff.on the dale in yuestion, when they saw l\vu cat's passing each other, and wailed on a green plot at the intersection of three roads to let the approaching car pass, This par, when passing the other, drained its lights bot then switched them on again afterward*, the glare from the lamps being blinding. As the vehicle approached the intersection where witness and plaintiff were waiting on the strip of grass, it swerved to the right and struck plaintiff, who had pushed witness aside. • Plaintiff was struck’down oh the grass pilots—not on the roadway. The horn was not sounded. Tim place on the 'grass

where plaintiff lav was wliei’e he was struck by the car —he had not been moved. After the accident defendant backed his car to where plaintiff was lying and, it was alleged by witness, said: “I either had to hit the telegraph post or hit you.” Defendant did not blame . either plaintiff or witness for the accident. THE DEFENDANT’S STORY. Chas. Conlan, who was with his brother, the defendant, at the time of the accident, also gave evidence in the course of which he said that when the car reached the vicinity of the accident, on the night of Jan. 28, another car was met., the spot-light of which blinded him for the moment. Immediately after passing this car, witness heard a voice cry, “Come back,” and then saw a man in the road in front of the ear. Witness shouted a warning to his brother, who was driving and who immediately pulled up. When witness returned to the spot, Betty was lying with his head in the wheel rut of the road. The ear had slewed to the left and was off the road on the grass. Witness could not see Betty earlier on account of the other car which they had just passed. A man and woman immediately cable up and witness assisted the man in removing Betty from the road to the grass. The defendant’s car had good headlights, and did hot dim to pass the other car. It was travelling at a speed of from 12 to 14 miles per hour. If Betty had remained on the grass he would not have been struck. John Conlan, the defendant, corroborated the evidence of his brother. Evidence relative to the accident was also given by A. C. Tongs, grocer, John Kelly, labourer, and Constable Owen, all of Foxton. ADDRESS TO THE JURY. After counsel had addressed the jury, His Honour summed up the case and pointed out. that there were several issues open for consideration. On the one hand, they would be asked to decide whether the defendant’s negligence was the cause of the accident, and, on the other, whether the blame was the plaintiff's, or, in short, what was the cause of the affair. There was a conflict of the evidence of the two parties, the statement of Constable Owen being that Mi’s Betty had informed him on the following morning that plaintiff had tried to cross the road just as the car approached. The jury retired at 4.35 p.m. and cn returning at 5.55 p.m. announced a decision in favour of defendant. Mr Hollings asked for the suspension of judgment pending an application for a new trial on the ground that the verdict was not in accordance with the weight of evidence. His Honour said four days were allowed to enter an application, and there was no reason why judgment should be suspended. Leave to move for a new trial would be reserved for the time mentioned, Mr Cooper intimated that he would not press for costs, and His Honour accordingly gave judgment for defendant without costs.