BOTH HAVE DUTIES.

Auckland Star, Volume LXII, Issue 117, 20 May 1931, Page 3

BOTH HAVE DUTIES.

MOTORIST AND PEDESTRIAN. CAUSES OF STREET ACCIDENTS JUDGE'S REMARKS TO JURY. Comments on the duties of motorists and pedestrians were made by Mr. Justice Herdman wlien he was summing up in a collision case at the Supreme Court to-day. He said that in France, if a person got in the way of a motor car and was run down and injured, he had no claim of any kind against the driver, but if the car was damaged because the driver was trying to avoid a collision, a claim could be brought against the pedestrian. "In New Zealand and England we have reached a higher plane of civilisation and we provide by our law that if a person, not guilty of negligence, is injured by reason of the negligence of the person driving a motor car, a claim can be made for damages," said his Honor. He added that it must be shown that the driver had been guilty of some breach of duty. Any person who used a street, whether the driver of a motor car or a horse-drawn vehicle, or a pedestrian, was bound to exercise proper, care. Motorists were under an obligation to keep a proper look out, to drive at a reasonable, speed and have their cars under proper control. A pedestrian was not entitled to cross a street with his eyes shut or to be "wool-gathering." If he attempted to cross with his view obscured, and an accident happened, the driver of the car was not guilty of any contributory neglect. The pedestrian was the author of his own misfortune, and was not entitled to recover anything.

In some cases nobody was to blame for an accident, said his Honor, and in that event the defendant would succeed. If both parties were equally to blame, the defendant would again succeed. The defendant would also succeed where, even if there had been neglect, the real cause of the accident was the contributory negligence of the plaintiff.