DUTIES DEFINED

Dominion, Volume 24, Issue 200, 21 May 1931, Page 8

DUTIES DEFINED

Motorists & Pedestrians

AVOIDING ACCIDENT

Degrees of Responsibility

Dominion Special Service.

Auckland, May 20.

Comments on the duties of motorists and pedestrians were made by Sir Alexander Herdman when summing up in a collision case at the Supreme Court today.

Sir Alexander said that in France if a person got- in the way of a motor-car and was run down and Injured he had no claim of any kind against the driver, but if the car were damaged because the driver was trying to avoid a collision a claim could be brought against the pedestrian. “In New Zealand and England. we have reached a higher plane of civilisation, and we provide by our law that if a person not guilty of negligence is Injured by reason of negligence of the person driving the motor-car a claim can be made for damages,” said his Honour. He added that it must be shown that the driver had- been guilty of some breach of duty. Any person who used the street, whether the driver of a motor-car or a horse-drawn vehicle, or a pedestrian, was bound to exercise proper care. Motorists were under an obligation to keep a proper look-out, to drive at reasonable speed, and have their cars under proper control. A pedestrian was not entitled to cross a street with his eyes shut or to be "wool gathering.” If he attempted to cross with his view obscured and an accident happened, the driver of the car was not guilty of any contributory neglect. The pedestrian was the author of his own misfortune, and was not entitled to recover anything. In some cases nobody was to blame for an accident, said his Honour, and in that event defendant would succeed If both parties were equally to blame defendant would again succeed; defendant would also succeed where, even if there had been neglect, the real cause of the accident was the contributory negligence of plaintiff.