Supreme Court MOTOR-CYCLIST AWARDED £839 IN DAMAGES CLAIM

Press, Volume XCVII, Issue 28767, 12 December 1958, Page 21

Supreme Court MOTOR-CYCLIST AWARDED £839 IN DAMAGES CLAIM

A young motof-c/clist who claimed £2798 damages against a motorist was found by a jury in the Supreme Court yesterday to have been partly to blame for an accident and was awarded only £839 of the £1398 damages assessed. The jury held that he was 40 per cent, responsible for the accident. As the amount paid into Court exceeded the damages awarded, the defendant will ask Mr Justice Hutchison for judgment today. The plaintiff, Raymond George Smith (Mr G. H. Gould), had claimed £2500 general, and £298 special damages against Clarence Jordan (Mr A. W. Brown, with him Mr R. P. Thompson), alleging that Jordan had failed to keep a proper look-out.

About 8.45 p.m. on April 26, 1957, Smith was riding his motorcycle along Buckleys road towards the city, said Mr Gould. Just before the intersection with Wyon street he aaw a car parked partly oh the footpath, and presumed it would wait there until he had passed. But as he aproached the car, it backed out without warning into the middle of the road, and he was unable to avoid a collision. Smith’s machine struck the rear of the car and he was thrown over the top of it. His motorcycle came to rest in the opposite gutter. Plaintiff’s Injuries The plaintiff had suffered fairly slight injuries to the head and right thumb, and a very serious injury to the left ankle, said counsel. He had spent three weeks in hospital, where he had an operation, and had been off work for four months. The fracture ot the ankle was fixed with a metal plate and screws, but although the bone had united, the plaintiff was left with a very bad joint indeed. Medical evidence would show that Smith could expect further trouble and might have to have the joint made rigid permanently, Mr Gould added. For the rest of his life the plaintiff would have a very bad left leg atid would be quite unable to do many jobs. He might have to undergo one or even two more operations which would cause him to be off work for five or six months. His enjoyment of life woulcP be seriously affected by his injuries: he could never play football again or go deer-stalking, which were two of his favourite pastimes. In evidence Smith said that just before the collision he saw a bus and two cars approaching, so he dipped his headlight. As the other vehicles passed him he saw Jordan’s car half on the road and half on the footpath. He accelerated and swerved to the right as the car backed, but it was too late. Plaintiff Cross-examined Cross-examined by Mr Brown Smith said that he did not have a driving licence or a warrant of fitness for his motor-cycle at the time of the accident. He had carried out some repairs on the machine, and was satisfied that the brakes and lights were functioning properly. The witness also said that he was not wearing a safety helmet at the time. • - Smith denied that his lights were switched off before the impact, and said they were functioning properly at the time. Opening the case for the defence Mr Thompson said the defendant denied negligence and claimed that Smith was solely responsible for the accident. On

the evening or me collision? «rardaa and his wife had been visit* inir-friends at a house in Buckley* road. When they left Jor« dab backed the car slowly down the stopped on the culvert to give dray to some traffic, and then tiokrty turned into the middle the road. He was about to when the motor-cycle struck the middle of his back bomptriis r. The force d threw Smith about from the back of the car, atta ins motor-cycle came to rest 3Sft away< which indicated that the. plaintiff was travelling at a considerable speed at the tone, Mr Thompson said The three rear lights?«n the back of Jordan’s car were forking and would have given ample warning to other traffic. When Jordan examined Smiths machine he found the light switch in the ••oft'’ position. ' There was no evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant, but if the jury found there was it was submitted that the accident was caused mainly by Smith's contributing negligence. said counsel. ' Defendant's Evidence ' Jordan said in evidence that after the accident Smith said to him: “Don't worry, it’s not your fault.” Before the impact he had seen no lights of a motorcycle approaching. To Mr .Gould Jontan dented that he had switched off the light on Smith’s motor-cycle. Dr J. K. Davidson said that Smith had made a good recovery from his injuries and had lost little movement Of his ankle joint. There was no certainty that he would need further opera- ' Mr Brown told the jury that it was the plaintiff and not the defendant who had failed to take reasonable care. Smith had ample warning but instead ot breaking he had accelerated and swerved. x . Jordan was negligent in backing out into the road without keeping a proper look-out and in failing to see Smith approaching on a straight clear road, Mr Gould submitted.