LOSS OF AN EYE.

Auckland Star, Volume LVI, Issue 284, 1 December 1925, Page 9

LOSS OF AN EYE.

I 'CLAIM FOR £734 DAMAGES.

- gEQU E__, TO BUS ACCIDENT

' VERDICT FOii DEFENDANT

► (By Telegrapii.-Sl wiiil to "Star.")

XEW PLYMOUTH, this day

. iud-ment of importance to motorU was delivered in the Supreme Court -fib Justice Ostler in regard to the "? " "ihilitv of drivers for accidents Sffout of the presence of stock on ads in the case of Raymond Faueett !Lof Pukekohe) who claimed £734 15/ Kinases from Gibson's -Motors, Ltd., tor the loss an eye in a motor aecint neat Puniho, through the capsibing • service Ims. The judge gave his Ljsion in favour of the defendant com:.„V holding uiat negligence on the f m of the driver had not been established He al<*> = aid Li,iU cvun if tllure tad been, the real cause of the accident vli the breaking away of the road.

Ihe circumstances were that Mrs. faUcett and her children, who were removing to Pukekobe, joined tbe bus . car Warea and shortly afterwards the (,__ capsized, and the boy Raymond faiicett, who was about seven years of ire had his eye cut out by broken glass. |_c cause of the accident was said to i» three calves which strayed on to the road, to avoid which the driver pulled Jo the side of the road, keeping the two left-side wheels of the machine on tho jaetal. A clay filling on to which the other wheels ran gave way, and the bus toppled over. There "'as no question of ipeeding in the case but it was subBitted for the plaintiff that the driver i-as negligent in taking a heavy passenjtr bus off the metal roadway, and also that, when he first saw the calves on the road 30 or 40 feet away, he should have slowed down until lie saw* what they were going to do in case they should run in front of the bus.

j His Honor said that could not bo upheld, as, if it was, it would be difficult lor to drivers to maintain a reasonable timetable. The submission that there was negligence in taking the two wheels of the bus off the metal part of the road tiso could not be sustained. Th e driver jras going slowly and he was justified jn avliming that if two wheels were on tie metal he would be able to bring the bus back again on to the roadway. The •kidding of a car was an accident which the driver could not be expected to hive foreseen.

]In the opinion of the judge there was mt any evidence of negligence, and for tlesefreasons his Honor found in favour of defendant, for whom he gave jud<*ient, as stated, with costs.