JURY'S VERDICT.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVII, Issue 243, 13 October 1936, Page 8

JURY'S VERDICT.

NEW TRIAL SOUGHT.

DAMAGES FOR CYCLIST

STRUCK UNLIGHTED CAB.

The verdict of a jury in a claim for damages heard in the Supreme Court in iJuly last was challenged this morning, before Mr. Justice Fair. At the hearing the rider of a motor : cycle, Holford Stewart, who had run into the back of an unligh'ted motor car parked on the ! side of the Great South Koad, and sustained a broken thigh, was awarded f 1000 general and £259 special damages, against George Alfred Francis Hancock, grocer, of Penrose, the driver of the car. This morning Mr. Towle, for the defendant, moved for a nonsuit on a number of grounds, and .alternatively for a new trial on the ground that the damages were excessive and the verdict against the weight of evidence. Mr. Holmden appeared in opposition. Facts Outlined. The facts, said Mr. Towle, were that the defendant's car was stationary on its correct side of the road near Rangiriri facing Auckland, while the plaintiff had been riding in the same direction. The whole weight of the plaintiff's evidence showed that the road was clear aii<i that it was quite a good driving night. The defendant's evidence was that there was practically a full moon and no fog or clouds to obscure the view. His Honor: None of the witnesses seems to have given evidence whether there were clouds over the moon at the time of the accident. Mr. Towle: I submit that whether there was or not it could still be quite a clear driving night. There is 110 evidence of fog or rain. The evidence, added Mr. Towle, had established that the car was just clear of the edge of the 'bitumen, which was 20 feet wide" and had from three to five feet of metal on its sides. When counsel was dealing with the position of another car which had pulled up 011 the other side of .the road, after passing the defendant's, his Honor said it was not questioned that the . cars were 30 yards apart. Dazzled by Car Lights.. On the evidence adduced, counsel submitted, the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence in that "lie failed to keep a proper lookout, in proceeding as he did when dazzled by the lights of another car, and, thirdly, in proceeding at a pace which would not allow him to stop in time to avoid the stationary vehicle. Mr. Towle added that the plaintiff had stated that he had looked to the right, at the.car pulled up in advance of the defendant's for about, a sccond. Counsel contended that had it not been for this unreasonable conduct plaintiff would have seen the car ahead of him earlier. The plaintiff could not excuse his conduct by saying that the defendant had 110 light. (Proceeding.)