CYCLIST CLAIMS DAMAGES

Press, Volume LXXXVI, Issue 26283, 30 November 1950, Page 3

CYCLIST CLAIMS DAMAGES

BARBADOES STREET ACCIDENT CASE FOR DEFENDANT PRESENTED addence for both parties was completed yesterday in the Supreme Court, before Mr Justice Northcroft and a jury, in the case in which Gerald Joseph Robertson, a truck driver A 1250 general damages and ... w 4, d - spec ‘?l damages from Robert William Hampton, a motor mechanic, for injuries received in a collision between a bicycle ridden by the plaintiff and a motor-car driven by the defendant at the intersection or Barbadoes street and Cambridge terrace on June 26. 1949. s The hearing, which began on Tt”soay. will be continued to-day w -jn counsel will address the jury and his Honour will sum up. T . Youn B- and with him Mr , I .„ T appearing for the plainu R ' Lascelles, and with him d*efend?nt ggat> ** appearil * for the w ho suffered fractures of both bones of the lower right leg alleged that the accident was due to the negligence of the defendant. Evidence was given by the plaintiff on Tuesday and. when the hearing was continued yesterday, he was cross-examined by counsel for the defence Other witnesses were then called for the plaintiff. Evidence for Plaintiff David McKee Dickson, a surgeon, said that as a * result of his injuries u- Pt 111 ! 1 ? now had a right ankle which had lost one-third of its downward movement. His foot was flat and somewhat stiff. These constituted an appreciable disability. The ankle would probably worry plaintiff to the end of his days. George O’Connor. a barman, said that on Sunday, June 26, 1949, the plaintiff was a visitor at his house. They had some beer and the plaintiff had no more than five seven-ounce glasses. The plaintiff left the house at 5 p.m. to go home and was carrying two bottles of beer, which witness had given him for his father. The Plaintiff was quite sober at that time. Michael Hanrahan, a labourer, said he was at O’Connor’s home with Robertson on June 26. 1949. He corroborated the evidence given bv the P r £ vI £VA witness - He and plaintiiff left O Connor’s house just before 5 p.m. and it was quite clear. The street lights were not on. Gerald Thomas Robertson, a retired rail . wa .y officer, and father of the plaintiff, said that the defendant called Jo tell him about the accident the evening it happened. The defendant fault acci ° ent was definitely his Jean Maud Bullen, an officer of the Geophysical Observatory, produced the Nautical Almanac, giving the time of sunset on June 26. 1949. as 5.1 p.m. closed the case for the plainCase For Defendant Mr Leggat. outlining the defendants case to the jury, submitted that the plaintiff was not entitled to any damages. The defendant denied the allegations that he was negligent and said that the accident was caused soleiy by the negligence of the plaindefence was that the plaintiff faded to keep a proper lookout; that he rode an unlighted bicycle during the hours of darkness; that he r°? e . a A bicycle while in a state of intoxication; and that he failed to slow down, or stop, or steer clear of the defendant’s car. Further, if the defendant was negligent, which wjs denied, the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence in a substantial manner. TTie defendant would say it was “? r .£ the time of the accident and visibility was poor, continued counsel. He had the car lights on approaching the intersection of Barbadoes street and Cambridge terrace, and his speed was estimated to be 10 miles an hour. This was borne out by his being able to stop in a very short distance. The night was foggy —it. was one of 14 nights in a rdw when Christchurch had very heavy fogs—and the ae fident happened close to the Avon river. There had been heavy rain before the accident, and there was misty rain at the time of the accident The defendant would say that the accident happened at 5.25 p.m. He a proper lookout and S B5 °b . hl s correct side of the road. On making a check, approaching the mtersection. he did not see the plaintiff, but for the very good reason that the plaintiff had no light on a * s an< * had no distinguishing ® t a ,e ? ent by the plaintiff's father that the defendant had admitted responsibility for the accident would be denied by the defendant, pie plaintiff had alleged that the def ai . l u d , eive way on his n * *u the right hand rule was not the only yard-stick by which to <hlT I u nln « l a A Person having the benefit of that rule could easily deprive himself of that benefit by his own negligence. He now had to deal with an unpleasant aspect of the case—the plaintiffs condition that night, said counsel. Ejndence would be given that two men virtually carried the plaintiff into the hospital. The plaintiff’s recollection of occurrences that night was so wrong in so many respects that there must be a reason for it; the defence suggestea that the reason was not far to seek. Counsel for the plaintiff had criticised the entry on the hospital card, but it was made by a house sur--B®°n. whose duty it was to record the condition of a patient as he found it. Why should the house surgeon make such an entry if there was not abundant evidence to justify it? The defendant would say that the plaintiff was not only carrying two bottles of beer in his pockets, but was also carrymg beer inside him, and in a large quantity. The house surgeon who made the entry on the card was now in England and could not be called to justify it. but a well qualified hospital sister would say there was no doubt in her ’hat the plaintiff was intoxicated. Inere was a conflict between the medical evidence given for the plaintiff and that which would be called bv the defence on the extent and nature of the plaintiffs injuries. The defence witnesses would say that the possibility of the plaintiff developing osteo-arth-ritis was a matter of pure speculation. They would also say that the fractures i ’he Jeg could not have caused the plaintiff’s flat foot. The defendant gave evidence on the lines of counsel's statement of his case. Clara Gilchrist, sister in charge of the orthopaedic department at the Christchurch Public Hospital, said she was on duty when the plaintiff was admitted to the department. A house surgeon decided that the plaintiff was not m a fit state to be given an anaesthetic and decided io put him in plaster and let him go home. She noticed that the plaintiff’s breath smelled of liquor but she would not like to form an opinion as to his state of sobriety. Ngaire Wyke. a nurse aide, gave similar evidence. Rita Florence Hampton, wife of the defendant, gave evidence in support of that of her husband. James Keith Davidson, a surgeon, estimated the plaintiffs disability at not more than 10 per cent. Philip Stanley Foster, a surgeon, said he found it difficult to think that the accident had any bearing at all on the flattening of the foot of the plaintiff. A doctor would not, in his experience. make an entry of the sort shown on the card unless the condition was very marked. Jean Maud Bullen, recalled, said that, according to the records, the evening of June 26, 1949, was overcast, with a little rain and foggy conditions. That closed the case for the defence, and the Court adjourned until to-day