MOTOR CAR ACCIDENT.

Auckland Star, Volume LVII, Issue 94, 22 April 1926, Page 11

MOTOR CAR ACCIDENT.

CLAIM FOR 'DAMAGES FAILS. NEGLIGENCE NOT PROVEN. The claim for £391 6/0 as damages following a motor car accident through which she suffered severe injuries, i hrought by Miss Lilly Bryant, tailoress .Mr. Fitzhcrbert), against Walter * Charles Elliot (Mr. Northcroft), was concluded before Mr. Justice Herdman iin the Supreme Court yesterday after;noon. • - j For the plaintiff it was stated that she was knocked down in Upper Queen i Street by the defendant, who, it was i alleged, drove his motor car in a negligent manner. She said she started Ito cross the street near the Mormon Church and there was a tram car coming down the hill. It was her intention to cross behind the tram. She saw no sign of trafiic except for the tram. The next time she knew anything was when she recovered consciousness in hospital. For the defence it was contended that there had not been negligence. It was an accident and an unfortunate one. It had been a dirty night, with rain and wind. Defendant overtook the tram car, and was then travelling about three miles an hour faster than it was, and that would be about 15 miles an hour. Miss Bryant suddenly emerged from the darkness and crossed in front of him. s.Shis had her head down as if seeking j protection from the' wind and rain. He J made every endeavour to avoid her, hut |tho ; greasy condition of the road caused his car to skid, and ho did not question j that he struck her. . As ha had his rigl_t hand on .th* stWnring .wh«_l and his lfcft os the brake, h» could not found his horn. After lengthy evidence, His Honor said Miss Bryant -was deserving of every sympathy, but the question for the Court was whether she had proved that there had - r been negligence. He was bound to say that she had failed th do t that, and the evidence pointed more-: to lan i unfortunate accident.' ..." Plaintiff would therefore ho nonsuited -with icostf. . ■ i. . v.