Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

DUTY IN STREETS

Pedestrians Warned

A PROPER LOOK-OUT

Claim on Motorist Fails

That it is necessary for pedestrians as well as motorists to, exercise care in .the streets was shown in the Magistrate’s Court by Mr. E. Page, S.M., who disallowed a claim by a pedestrian against a motorist for damages, mainly because plaintiff had been guilty of contributory negligence. “It is the duty of pedestrians crossing narrow streets such as we have in Wellington, to see that the road is clear,” said the magistrate.

Plaintiff was William Lingard Grinlinton, labourer-, of Wellings ton (Mr. Goodwin), who claimed from William Ernest Brice, taxidriver, of Wellington (Mr. Leicester), £lOl/10/3 damages for being run down and injured by defendant’s car on July 5 last. The allegations of .negligence made against defendant were: Excessive speed, failing to keep a sufficient look-out, failing to keep on the correct side of the road, failing to avoid plaintiff, and falling to have his car adequately lighted. Evidence called for plaintiff showed that defendant’s car was travelling very fast and swerved toward the wrong side of the road. Plaintiff was found lying about the centre of the two sets of tramlines in Willis Street. Mr. Leicester applied for a non-suit on the ground that plaintiff could have avoided the accident by exercising proper care, but the magistrate reserved the point until he had heard the evidence. Defendant’s evidence was that he saw plaintiff on the footpath and had no reason to think plaintiff would attempt to cross the road. Plaintiff had walked into the left rear portion of the car. The vehicle was lighted, and its speed was not more than 15 miles an hour.

In giving judgment for defendant, with costs, the magistrate said that plaintiff had failed to discharge the onus upon him to prove negligence on the part of defendant, On ■ the other hand, there was evidence that plaintiff had been guilty of contributory negligence. . Down to the point of the accident he might have avoided it by keeping a proper look-out

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DOM19301122.2.118

Bibliographic details

Dominion, Volume 24, Issue 50, 22 November 1930, Page 13

Word Count
338

DUTY IN STREETS Dominion, Volume 24, Issue 50, 22 November 1930, Page 13

DUTY IN STREETS Dominion, Volume 24, Issue 50, 22 November 1930, Page 13

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert