SUPREME COURT Cyclist Injured In Accident Sues Motorist For £5966

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31159, 8 September 1966, Page 11

SUPREME COURT Cyclist Injured In Accident Sues Motorist For £5966

A cyclist who claimed he] was run down from behind by a car while riding to work! along Waterloo road, Sock-1 burn, on July 10, 1964, | claimed £5OOO general and! £966 special damages from] the motorist, in an action J begun in the Supreme Court! yesterday. The plaintiff. Frederick | James Le Comte, a spray I painter, suffered multiple in-1 juries, according to evidence I given—fissured fractures of I the skull, a broken right | shoulder, a broken right hip,! and a severe shattering frac-| ture of the right femur —in-1 juries which he claimed were j caused by the negligence of the motorist, Ronald Patrick Dalton, an electrical engineer. The case, which is being tried before Mr Justice Macarthur and a jury of 12, will continue today. The plaintiff Le Compte is! represented by Mr R. A. Young, with him Mr P. G. S. Penlington, and the defend-] ant, Dalton, by Mr R. P.' Thompson, with him Mr C. B. Atkinson. Arm Signal Le Comte, said Mr Young, on approaching the premises of Flewellen and Lipscomb. Lid., where he worked, had looked behind and seen a car 200-250 yards behind him,! and accordingly extended his | right arm to signal his turn j across the road into the | firm's alleyway. Something had then told Le| Corate that all was not well, and he had looked behind!

again, "and to his horror saw this car right behind, bearing down upon him,” Mr Young said.

Le Comte was struck with some violence, thrown from his bicycle, and landed on the bitumen on the left-hand side of the road, suffering multiple injuries.

The defence no doubt would suggest that Le Comte had turned right across the car’s path, said Mr Young, but his bicycle (produced on the floor of the court as an exhibit) showed clearly that Le Comte had been struck “fair and square,” from behind. “We say that the motorist Dalton should have kept an eye on this cyclist, and should not have run him down from behind,” Mr Young said. “Silent Evidence” Because there had been nobody to attend to the injured man’s interests (by taking measurements and gathering witnesses) the jury would be asked to rely very much on the silent evidence—skid marks, and the like. Le Comte gave evidence about the accident, as outlined, and was cross-examined at length by Mr Thompson on the aspect of turning right across the car’s path, on which aspect Mr Thompson later opened the defence case, submitting to the jury that Le Comte had turned “without warning” in front of Dalton.

Le Comte, questioned by Mr Thompson, said he had considered he had had plenty

of time to make his turn, and also spoke of the car's “excessive speed.” Mr Thompson: Why did you take the risk of turning in the face of a car travelling, you say, at excessive speed?

Le Comte: I would not know he was travelling at excessive speed when I gave my signal. Medical evidence was given by John Garland Lester, an orthopaedic surgeon and fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons, who said he had taken charge of Le Comte as a medical case, since the accident, he (Lester) having just returned from England at that time.

On the medical aspect, Mr Young had told the jury that

Le Comte had been reduced from a fit, healthy man to a partial cripple. After an initial operation, in which the broken femur was pinned, Le Comte had suffered such severe pain that further surgery was undertaken.

But as a result of his injuries, Le Comte could not now walk, or sit, with any comfort, and could only work standing up, being now employed as a fettler by Andrews and Beaven, Ltd. After the evidence of five witnesses had been heard—four for the plaintiff, and Constable J. D. H. Boyd (who attended the accident) for the defence —the hearing was adjourned to this morning. No police action had been taken over the accident, Constable Boyd said.