THE DANGEROUS SPOTLIGHT.

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 18924, 12 February 1927, Page 7

THE DANGEROUS SPOTLIGHT.

DAMAGES AWARDED TO I PEDESTRIAN. Rather important comment upon the use of only a 6pot-light for lighting purposes on a motor-cycle- was made by Mr O. B. Orr-Wolker, S.M., when delivering his reserved judgment at the Ashburton Magistrate's Court yesterday morning. The case was the one in which Robert Frederick Lynn (Mr A. K. North) claimed the sum of £l5O as special damages and £3l 2s as general damages from Charles William Pyne Shearman, a clerk of Ashburton I (Mr C. S. Thomas), for injuries alleged to have resulted from tho negligence of defendant in driving his motorcycle ovor the plaintiff in Walnut terrace at about 7.45 on the evening of August 18th. The plaintiff woe walking along tho roadway at the time. The judgment stated: "I am satisfied that this is a case, which, in the absence of explanation, pointed to negligence on the part of the defendant. The plaintiff was exercising his right to walk along the roadway towards the left side comparatively near the grass border and the defendant was overtaking the plaintiff at a pace, according to himself, from 15 to 20 miles an hour, and had a light on his motorcycle. There was a conflict of evidence as to what tho plaintiff actually did just prior to the accident, but he gathered from the evidence that the plaintifi was walking along the road near to tho left edge and having heard and seen the cycle coming cased off a little more to the left. The cycle was bearing down on him, and, no doubt, instinct directed him to jump further to the left, but he was too late to avoid the cycle. Contributory must be proved by defendant, and, in my opinion, he certainly has not proved it. I<> was plain that if the defendant was keeping a good look out, and had his cycle properly lighted, he must have seen the hoy long before reaching him, and could hare avoided him. Defendant's evidence gives the explanation for his not seeing the boy. It came out in Court that his ordinary lamp was not in order, and he waft using a spot-light, which showed a small, sharp beam striking the road at a distance of some 40 yards aheadshowing nothing on the road unless the object came within its sharp beam. The use of the spot-light is, I believe, the explanation why defendant did not have a view of the boy ahead of him. A light such as this is perhaps worse than no light at all, for a pedestrian would hear an unlighted cycle and promptly get-out of ite way, whereas, seeing the cycle had a light, and reasonably believing he could be seen, he would be lulled into a false sense of security and continue on his way. I must find that defendant was guilty of negligence and the reckless use of the road, and thus caused the injuries to the plaintiff. Judgment was given for plaintiff for £3l 7s 6d special damages. £25 general damßges, and costs £9 16s.