NEGLIGENCE ALLEGED

Waikato Times, Volume 119, Issue 19904, 5 June 1936, Page 8

NEGLIGENCE ALLEGED

CYCLIST CLAIMS £1737. ‘ | SEDDON ROAD COLLISION. 1 i —-- i i VICTIM INCAPACITATED. After a hearing which occupied a day and a—hait‘, the case was concluded in the Supreme. Court at Hamilton to—day, in which a claim for damages amounting to £1737 05 6d was brought by a painter. Thomas Jones {Mr N. S. Johnson) against George John Baker. carrier, of Hamilton (311‘ J. F. Strang). The claim was a sequel to a collision between a motor-lorry driven by defendant and plaintiff. who was riding a bicycle in Seddon Road on February 21, 1935. Mr Justice Fair presided. It was alleged that Baker had driven negligently in causing the accident. which had resulted in plaintiff receiving severe head injuries. amounting to total incanacitation. . _

. Continuing his evidence this morn—mg defendant denied that. when crossing the railway line. he had diverted his attention from the road to glance at the. timber he was carrying. By swerving to the left he had given the cyclist all the room to pass that was possible. . Evidence corroborating the main points of defendant's version of the accident was given by a passenger in his lorry. Ivor Layhourne \\'ilson. farmer, of .\‘gahinapouril The addresses of counsel and llis itonour's summing up completed the hearing and the jury who were. asked to assess damages independently of their consideration of defendant‘s alleged negligence, retired at 1.15 [LU]. VESTERDAV’S EVIDENCE. “ I had pulled up in Seddon Hoad ops posite .\larema street," stated Leslie Goodwin. carrier, of Hamilton, an eyewitness of the collision. Witness said his truck was pulled up 011‘ the bitumen on the side of the road. and look—ing through the rear window. he noticed defendant‘s lorry approaching from the direction of Norton ltoad. lle was travelling in the centre or the road at a speed of 25 or 30 miles per hour. .-\s defendant crossed the rail—way line there came a bump and the rattle of timber. As defendant paSSed, witness heard the noise of an impact and observed that the lorry was on its correct side of the road. Jones was lying on the bitumen on the other side just 011' the edge of the metal surface. Defendant. whose lorry travelled about 90 feet further on before pulling up. told witness that he did not know what Jones was doing and had thought plaintiff had intended to pass between the two vehicles. Medical oplnlonl. An ophthalmic surgeon, Dr. A. \\’. Beveridge. of Hamilton, detailed the injuries received by plaintiff and said that the displacement of the Eye had caused complete double vision. \\‘lth glasses plaintiff had over '7O per cent. of sight in the injured eye, but there was a risk of blindness. There was no treatment for the double vision itself. and the pulsation of the blood vessels in the eye brought about. constant noise and throbbing in the head. By operation this might be stopped. but only [:0 per cent. of these cases were successful. Plaintiff‘s mental condition had changed for the worse, and he would never be capable of working.

Similar evidence was tendered by Dr. R. S. A. Graham, assistant medical superintendent and surgeon at the VVaikato Hospital. He considered plaintiff to be in a totally incapacitated condition, and there was a grave risk attached to any remedial operation.

I Opening for the defence. .\lr Strang submitted that in weighing the aile‘gations of negligence the jury should ‘not be swayed by any sympathetic iconsiderations. The accident appeared lto have been caused by momentary linattentlon on the part of the cyclist. as the defendant had reduced speed Ibet‘ore negotiating the crossing and had retained his correct poeition on ithe road afterwards. The point of limpact had occurred on defendant‘s ’correct side or the road, and Jones ‘had had 20 feet of road in which to ‘travel without the risk of collision ‘ Evidence from Defendant. It was not. possible to determine lthe point of impact from marlts on line roadway. stated Police Constable 16. C. Donnelly, who gave details of ‘measurements taken at the scene oi‘ the collision. ‘ From the witness—box defendant told the court that prior to crossing ‘the line he had reduced speed to 13 miles per hour, and was proceeding «ll 18 or 20 miles an hour unlil he saw the plaintiff‘s danger. He had noticed Jones when he was 145 yards from defendant, moving across towards the centre of the road. Plaintiff appeared to he lOOklng at witness‘s vehicle and swerved to the left suddenly. touch—in; the lorry‘s mudguard with the handlebars of his hicyrle. \\‘itness pulled up the lorry and went hack. to ilnd Jones lying on top of the hirycle. The impart, in \\it~ ness‘s upinion. had occurred about 5 feet on his rorrcct side of the mode in an endeavour to avoid the accident, witness had applied his brakes and pulled as far as possible to the left. but following the impact he had driven the lorry on and taken it into the side of the road. Until a later shower obliterated them he Could trace the wheel—marks of the lorry in a straight line along the road. At this stage the hearing was ad~ Journed. _ .