NEGLIGENCE PROVED

Dominion, Volume 24, Issue 62, 6 December 1930, Page 11

NEGLIGENCE PROVED

Collision in Tasman Street AWARD OF DAMAGES Ruling that there was negligence on the part of the defendant’s driver and that this was the direct cause of accident, the Chief Justice, Sir MichaelMyers, awarded damages totalling £428 13s in the Supreme Court yesterday in, an action brought by George Alfred Flitcroft, porter. (Mr. "Leicester) against Leslie Harman, taxi proprietor, (Mr. O'Leary). The statement of claim set out that on March 19 last at about 5.45 p.m. Flitcroft was proceeding on his motor cycle along Tasman Street in a southerly direction when a taxi cab, owned by Harman and driven by Arthur Collins, collided with him. It was alleged that the driver of the taxi was negligent in that he executed a sudden and dangerous manoeuvre across the road,, with-' out warning. The plaintiff received a Compound fracture-of ' the lower right leg and other injuries. He was still a patient in the Wellington Hospital and would be unable to resume work before January 19. . He claimed £228 13s special damages and £4OO general damages.

Negligence Denied. ‘ The statement of defence denied negligence and asserted that Collins was desirous of turning his car in order to park on the western side of the‘road. He slowed down on the eastern -side and then gave an arm signal of his intention to turn, having first looked back and ascertained that there was nothing to impede bis turn. While he was executing this manoeuvre the plaintiff, it was alleged, proceeded up Tasman Street ,in the centre of the street at an excessive speed and without keeping a proper look out, with the result that his motor cycle collided with the defendant’s car. The defence alleged that the cause of the collision was the negligence of the plainiffi (a) in riding his motor cycle at an excessive speed and (b) in failing to keep a proper look out. The following submissions were made by Mr. Leicester in support of the statement of claim: (1) In executing a dam gerous monoeuvre the driver of the taxi should have seen that the‘road was clear. ,(2) If the road was not. clear the driver of the taxi should have given some warning signal of his intention to turn. (3) He Should not have turned unless satisfied on reasonable grounds that his warning signal had been seen. In-the witness box, Collins said he had automatically looked at the reflecting mirror in the taxi when going up the street, but had not seen Flitcroft; neither had he noticed Flitcroft when he commenced to make the turn in the street. His • explanation for that was Flitcroft must have been following close behind the taxi on the blind side.. Before starting to turn he extended his right hand. Sliarp Conflict of Testimony. After hearing evidence for both sides, his Honour said there appeared at first sight, to be a sharp conflict of testimony, but it did not in the least follow from that that the witnesses either for the plaintiff or for the defendant were saying what they believed to be untrue,- On the contrary, they gave their evidence perfectly fairly and with obvious sincerity* It appeared to his Honour that Collins just before making his turn, or as he was making the turn, looked in his reflector and at that time did not see the plaintiff. Collins then, believing that there was no traffic whatever in the street, did not take as much care in making the signal as he would have done in ordinary circumstances and ought to have done in any circumstances. “I feel satisfied,” said his Honour, “that Collins did not give the signal he thinks he gave and the signal that ought to have been given to inform the plaintiff of what his car was about to do. . . . It has been said that the plaintiff was not keeping a proper look out. He himself denies that. ... I do not think I would be justified in coming to the conclusion that it is proved the plaintiff was not keeping a proper look-out. It follows then that there must be judgment for the plaintiff.” ' ' His Honour awarded the plaintiff iMo 13s special damages and £2OO general damages, with costs, according to scale, witnesses’ expenses, and disbursements. Mr. Leicester gave an undertaking to the Court to pay the sum of £lOB 13s to the Wellington Hospital Board.