MOTOR ACCIDENT.

Taranaki Daily News, 4 December 1920, Page 5

MOTOR ACCIDENT.

A CLAIM IN COURT. DECISION RESERVED. (From Our, Own Correspondent.) Stratford, Dec. 3. ' A claim for £63 10s special damages and £5 general damages, in respect of injuries sustained as a result of a motor collision, was heard at the Stratford Magistrate's Court to-day, before Mr. T. A. fl. Bailey, S.M. The plaintiff was ("Gorge Kehely, of Midhirst, contractor (■Mr. Arthur Coleman), and the defendant was W. Hunwich, of Hawera (Mr. G. J. Bayley). The statement of claim alleged that on or about July IS, 1920, tha plaintiff was travelling on the Mountain Road to Stratford on a motor cycle, when the defendant no unskilfully,'recklessly, and negligently drove and managed 'n motor car that the said motor car collided with the plaintiff and the plaintiff's motor cycle, and that as a direct result of the collision tho plaintiff sustained severe personal injuries which incapacitated him for a period of ten days. . The special damages claimed were made up as follows: Cost "of repairs to motor cycle, £3l 14s; loss of wages of plaintiff tor eight days at £l per dav, £B-/ loss of earnings of team of three" horses for eight days at £1 10s per day, £l2. medical expenses, £2 2s. ' The plaintiff said he was a contractor employed by the Stratford County Council. On the day in question, lie vvas on his way from Tariki to Midhirst, and ho saw an approaching motor lorry, and a car coming up behind it at what appeared to be a, verv fast speed. He went on to the correct side of the road, and was off the tarred portjon of the road when the car struck win. The car had passed the lorrv before it struck him. The car struck his motor cycle and threw him within a few feet of the fence. He was dazed for some time; and when he came to, Mr. Hunwich said the eollislop was his (Mr. Hunwich's) fault. He, was quite prepared to pay the costs of the repairs to the motor cycle. He wrote to Mr. Hunwich informing him that the cost of the repairs would 'be/about £3O, but he received no reply. A few days later, plaintiff went down to Hawerf and saw Mr. Hunwich, who admitted having received the letter, but thought the charge wa3 excessive.

Cross-examined by Mr. Bayley, plaintiff said he had bought the motor cycle only two days previous to tno accident, paying £4O for it second-hand. On the day of the accident he was travelling at only about 10 miles an hour. He i considered the ear was travelling at anything up to thirty miles an hour. Mr. Bayloy said the defence was that the defendant used every care a reasonable man could use while passing the lorry, but unfortunately he got a blowout just after passing' the lorry. Defendant put on his brakes immediately and did his best to avoid the collision. The accident was not due to any negligence on defendant's part, but was caused solely through the blow-out turning the head of the car to the right when he wanted to go to the left. The defendant said he was a sharemilker residing at Hawera. The accident took jilace at about half-past eleven. For nearly a mile they followed the motor lorry. He passed the motor, lorry on the right baud side, and was attempting to get back to his left aide when the blow-out occurred. It seemed to turn tlio front of the ear to tbe right, so he put on his brakes and endeavored to pull up. The motor cycle WR9 about a chain and a half from the motor lorry at the time he passed it, and there was plenty of room to pass tlie motor cycle if"tlio bjlow-out had not occurred. He travelled from twelve to fourteen' feet after the blow-out occurred before striking the motor cycle. It was impossible to avoid the accident, but he did the best ho could. If he had not put on the brakes when he <lid, the consequences would have been more serious. Witness did not say that the accident was caused by any neglect on his part, but he did say that he was, to blame, because it was his tyre that' caused the trouble.

Tlio Magistrate said lie would give his decision iii writing at Hawera.