CLAIM FOR DAMAGES

Dominion, Volume 22, Issue 263, 2 August 1929, Page 5

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES

COLLISION IN GORGE •An action to recover damages totalling £949 from ii builder, James Fredoricu Lilley, of Wellington, .was brought by a meclutnicj Desire kJtephaan Marcus, of Wellington, belore a judge and jury,, in the Suprerue Court yesterday. The claim was the outcome of a . collision in the Kaiwarra Gorge between a motor-car driven by defendant, and a motor-cycle ridden by plaintiff, as .a result of 'which plaintiff received .injuries to his left leg. ’The Chief Justice (Hon. M. Myers) was on the Bench. Messrs. G. G. Watson and W. B. Shetland represented plaintiff, and Messrs. H. F. O’Leary aud P. H. Putnam appeared for defendant. Mr. Watson’said that the collision occurred at the bottom of the Kaiwarra Gorge in the early morning of February 19. As a result the rider of the motorcycle .was grievously injured, and had brought the action against defendant, whom, the -plaintiff alleged, was the cause of the accident. The plaintiff was 25 years of age, living with his parents at Ngaio, it being his practice to come into town on his motor-cycle to bis employment- Plaintiff was a Belgian .citizen, and before coming to New Zealand had had considerable experience with motor vehicles iu Belgium, having been employed as a cbaifeur. Since his arrival in New Zealand he had held a driver s license. Oh the morning of the 1 accident the plaintiff was travelling slowly down the gorge, close to the bank, on his correct side of the road. As-the, plaintiff came round a bend the car driven by defendant loomed up in front on its wrong side. Plaintiff, stated counsel, blew the horn on his cycle, but nothing happened, and the car-driver adhered to the wrong side. Seeing a collision was imminent, plaintiff did what he thought to be best under the circumstances, and pulled to the right to avoid the car on the wrong side. At that time, as an English judge had stated, “when the agony of collision was on both parties,” the cur-driver went to his correct side, of the road. The result was that a collision occurred, and that the plaintiff was thrown off his machine and received a broken leg. Plaintiff would carry the disability to his leg throughout the rest of his life, there being a shortening of the limb- and restricted movement of the ankle. Mr. O’Leary said there would not be a great deal of controversy between (lie evidence already heard and that which would be called for the defence. The defendant was proceeding up the gorge to his work, and had three of his workmen in his car with him. Before reaching the scene of the accident defendant came upon _a heap of metal, which was not there to impede his progress when he was returning home the previous evening, it Wad admitted that the metal necessitated defendant moving out to his wrong side of the road to enable him to pass the heap. That was not negligence. I’rom the point where defendant would pass the metal there was a long view for a person either coming down or going up the gorge. As defendant passed the metal there was no need to take a sudden turn to the correct side, for with the long view it was unnecessary for him to do more than to gradually run back to Ips .correct side at an angle. Defendant would say that plaintiff came along, gave a turn to the. left and then suddenly turned to the right Shortly before the collision occurredWhen all the evidence had been wa™ the Court adjourned for the day., Hie jury will inspect the scene of the accident this morning, after which the case will be resumed.