BUDGE V. TAKAPUNA MOTOR BUS COMPANY.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXVI, Issue 78, 1 April 1905, Page 7

BUDGE V. TAKAPUNA MOTOR BUS COMPANY.

JUDGMENT FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

The case of Budge- v. the Takapuna Motor 'Bus Company was concluded yesterday afternoon. The claim wa9 for £150 damages for injuries received by the plaintiff in a collision with one of the company's 'buses.

Continuing his evidence, Mr Parsons said that If the 'bus had kept to the course it had run on previous occasions the accident would not have happened.

Further evidence of a like nature was given by Frederick Parsons and Edward Rogers. In applying for a nonsuit, Mr Baume said that if the accident had happened on a footpath there would have been a prima facie case against the driver; but on the road the foot passengers had, if anything, a little less right than the 'bus, and it was a pedestrian's duty to look and see where he was going and what was approaching him. The plaintiff had not exercised this care.

His Worship over-ruled the application for a nonsuit.

Dr. Lewis, called by Mr Baume, said he had examined Mr Budge, and considered that he was practically well. There was a certain amount of nervousness in the plaintiff's manner, but his nervous system was normal. Witness would not say that the plaintiff was permanently injured in health. Prank Buddie said he was driving the 'bus on this particular trip. The only other trips that the 'buses had made were on the previous day. He had travelled between 13 and 15 yards at about an ordinary walking pace before the accident occurred. Witness called out, and then went slowly on. tie did not suspect that the plaintiff would have continued In the direction he was going, and, as it waa, Mr Budge walked into the 'bus. Witness did not see the actual impact, but was looking straight ahead. About a week later, just as witness started the 'bus, Mr Budge walked right in front, and witness pulled up. There was no reason for his walking in front of the 'bus.

In giving judgment, Mr McCarthy said that it was clear that the plaintiff was going across the road, holding his hat on and looting in the direction he was going. It was also dear that he had not taken all the care he might have done. On the other hand, the motor 'bus was proceeding at about two miles an hour. It should have struck: any reasonable person that if the plaintiff kept on in the direction he was going, a coLlision must result. Bnddle called out, but took no further notice. In the magistrate's opinion, any reasonable man, taking into consideration the sort of place Devonport Is, would have stopped the 'bus. He was satisfied that the plaintiff was not permanently injured and would soon be well, keeping in view the fact that he was injured in December. The amount awarded to the plaintiff would be £30 and costs.

Mr Baume asked and obtained leave to appeal if necessary.