MOTOR-CAR AND CYCLIST.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 595, 25 August 1909, Page 5

MOTOR-CAR AND CYCLIST.

— »— '', ACTION FOR DAMACEB. AN IMPORTANT JUDGMENT. - ' (By Telegraph-Special Correspondent.). ' Napier, August 24. A most important judgment was delivered here this morning by Mr. M'Carthy, S.M., on the question of the precautions necessary to be taken by drivers of motor-cars. H. J. F. Styles sued Tom Rome for £49 Os. 6d., damages in respect of certain injuries, alleged to havo been suffered by plaintiff, consequent on tho negligence of the defendant while driving a motor-car. The facts of the case wore that on April 25 last plaintiff was cycling into Napier without a light. The motorcar overtook him, and he was knocked down, sustaining some severe injuries.

i His Worship said he could not adopt the statement of the defendant that the accident would not have happened if the plaintiff's lamp had been alight. His Worship went on to say: "The defendant and his witnesses admit that the radius of illumination from the two lamps on front l of the car extended for twenty to thirty feet ahead of the car, buttheradius of illumination also extended several feet beyond both sides of'the car. Plaintiff and his bicycle were, therefore, within the radius of illumination, • and could, havo been seen by defendant in time 1 to prevent an accident if the latter had been keeping, as was his duty, a vigilant, and constant look-out, which 1 am satisfied he was not.!' After referring to a speed exceeding ten miles ah hour being a serious,menace to others who.used the road, Mr. M'Carthy continued: "Pedestrians, bicyclists, and others, equally with, the owners of motor-cars, have a right to use the roads to which,''be it noted, those owners have not. a superior right or use.' Whilst' it is not incumbent upon pedestrians to . carry, lights, it is, therefore," all important that those adopting fast methods of traction should use' every known expedient in common use to avoid accident." There can bo no doubt that' these fast_ methods have come to stay, subject to certain limitations imposed for the public benefit. Further, such methods have been recognised by the ■ Legislature (see the Motor Regulation Act, 190S). Those adopting these methods must not, however,' regard themselves as licensed to kill or injure their fellow-citizen's. Thus, by' Section 4 of that Act the use of motors on any bridge, road, or place where such use would be attended with risk of damage to the bridge, or danger, to the public, may be either restricted or altogether prevented. : Then motors are' to carry a light between sunset and one. hour before sunrise, and are not only to carry, but to use; a bell or similar instrument, whilst provision is mado against rsckless driving,; and a duty is imposed on the driver of a motor in the event of accident to stop and give certain particulars (see Sections 7, 8, 9, and 10 of the Act, already cited). Here, then, is a Legislative acknowledgment of the" dangers incidental to fast methods of traction. Doubtless 'this Act only applies to certain classes of vehicles used'for light, as .distinguished from-heavy traffic, and there was no proof that defendant's' motor-car was of the description set out in.Section 2. Yet, from the' evidence, it was clear that defendant's motor, is capable of travelling, and does travel at a very high' rate of Bpeed,' and, in : my opinion, the duties imposed by Sections 7, 8, and 9 on - those using such a motor are duties whioh would,attach _ by the common law. apart from the provisions of any statute." Defendant was negligent in two re-.' spects. In the first place, he failed .to sound his horn. A man who travels on a difficult road on a dark night,, with a machj'r.a' travelling ten miles an -ihour, is, as we have seen,'T)6und to;adopt every known method in common use.to warn others; using the road of his presence thereon. To neglect such precautions is to place the. lives and limbs of those others in jeopardy. His.Worship further, held that defendant was .negligent' in not keeping a.vigilant and continu 7 ous look-out. Defendant nad he been maintaining a sharp look-out would have observed plaintiff at an, earlier stage, which, keeping in;view the respectivo rates of speed of the car.and the bicycle, and the-fact, that 'defendant was towards '• plaintiff's rear, was the last,opportunity of avoiding the accident,... and this opportunity,' was open to defendant alone, and was not, availed of.-' Even assuming defendant had no actual knowledge of plaintiff's presence on the road' the answer was that that knowledge would have been his/had he-kept'the proper lookout. . In. his opinion, the plaintiff was entitled to damages, which.he assessed at £25, with cost £6 3s. 6d. . . ~■-.■■'■ Mr. Dolan appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Lusk for the defendant.'. :./