DAMAGES GIVEN

Waikato Times, Volume 124, Issue 20727, 10 February 1939, Page 6

DAMAGES GIVEN

DEATH OF CYCLIST HAMILTON EAST FATALITY BOTH PARTIES NEGLIGENT Damages totalling £424 were awarded by the jury last evening in the case in which the Public Trustee, as administrator of the estate of Daniel Darby Flynn (Mr W. J. King), sought damages amounting to £774 from Dominion Motors, Limited, and Mervyn Halsey Woolven before Mr Justice Smith in the Supreme Court. Defendants were represented by Mr J. F. Strang. The claim was a sequel to an accident in Naylor Street, Hamilton East, on September 13, in which a car driven by Woolven struck Flynn, who died in hospital. In delivering its verdict after a retirement of two hours the jury considered that Woolven was negligent and, by a majority of nine to three, it considered that the deceased cyclist was also negligent. However, the real and effective cause of the accident was held to be the defendant Woolven’s negligence. Plaintiff was awarded £24 special damages and £4 00 general damages. Judgment was entered accordingly, and His Honour ordered that the £4OO be divided equally between the parents of deceased. Motor Engineer’s Evidence Harry Francis Blackie, a motor engineer, gave evidence of having inspected the marks on the road at the scene of the accident. He tested the brakes and found them to be in good order. There was a very dark spot on the road at the intersection, about 18 yards from the overhead light. It might be difficult for a motorist to see a cyclist at that place. When a motorist was a good distance from the lamp this “blind spot’’ appeared to be closer to the lamp. In the normal way a motorist should not hit a cyclist at that intersection, said witness when cross-examined. A cyclist in dark, clothes, without a reflector or a white-painted mudguard, should be seen passing through the light. Traffic-Inspector W. E. Nicholson, of Hamilton, did not think the aluminum paint on the rear forks of Flynn’s machine would serve as a satisfactory substitute for white paint on a mudguard. Unless the very modern types of lamps were used, overhead lighting was an undesirable form of illumination. Side lamps were more satisfactory, for they did not interfere with a motorist’s vision. Cross-examined, witness did not think the intersection was well lighted. In normal circumstances a motorist should be able to see a cyclist without a reflector at that place. This closed the case for the defence.