INJURED CYCLIST

Dominion, Volume 26, Issue 185, 3 May 1933, Page 11

INJURED CYCLIST

[ Jury Awards £157 Damages to Apprentice CONFLICTING EVIDENCE Two entirely coullietiiig stories of the circumstances of a collision between a motorist ami a cyclist on the Ngaio Gorge road on January 28 were told by witnesses in a damages claim heard in the .Supreme Court yesterday. Each side alleged that the accident was caused by the negligence of the other. The jury believed the story of the plaintiff, John William Thompson, engineer’s apprentice, aged 16 years, awarding damages of £157/9/11 against William Hendrick Millar, retired Public Servant. Wellington, the motorist.

Plaintiff was represented by Mr. It. 1.. A. Cresswell, and defendant by Mr. W. P. Rollings. The Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers) was on the Bench. Plaintiff, in his statement of claim, slated that on January 28, 1932, he was riding a bicycle down Ngaio Gorge Road, toward Kaiwarra. Defendant at the same time was driving his motor-car up the Ngaio Gorge Road in the opposite direction to plaintiff so negligently and unskilfully that it collided with plaintiff, causing serious injuries to the latter. He received injuries to bis face and neck, which would permanently disfigure him, and his clothing and bicycle were also damaged.

Plaintiff alleged Hint the negligence of defendant consisted, (a) in driving on the wrong side of the road; (b) failing to keep a proper look-out and observe plaintiff; (c) driving at an excessive speed having regard to the circumstances of the case; and (d) failing to steer clear of the plaintiff. Plaintiff accordingly claimed £5OO general damages, and £22/9/Jl special damages. Denial of Allegations. The defence was an absolute deuial of the allegations of negligence on the part of defendant. It was alleged that plaintiff was riding his bicycle upon his incorrect side of the road, and persevered on such a course until a collision with defendant appeared dangerously imminent, when defendant, in the emergency thus created, endeavoured to avoid a collision by moving toward his incorrect side. Plaintiff, it was alleged, suddenly endeavoured to regain his correct side of the road, and in so doing collided with defendant's car. Addressing the jury, Air. Rollings said that the real issue was, which of the two stories told in court was correct? Two entirely different stories had been given, and both could not be correct. Counsel submitted that the real explanation of the story was that the boy Thompson was riding his cycle al. an excessive speed down the hill, and was cutting the corners as he went. Boys had met I heir deaths through this very same reason. Counsel's Su.bmiiilions. Mr. Cresswell submitted that of the two conflicting stories. Hie jurv was entitled to believe that told by tile plaintiff. A significant fact was' that Ibe boy was on bis correct side of the road when the collision occurred If as defendant alleged, the boy, before the accident was on bis wrong side then how did be get back on his correct side again ? It was also significant that the boy’s lather said that defendant told him that he (the defendant) did not see the boy until he was two or three yards away, if the jury behevecl that, it was conclusive that doIcmkint was guilty of negligence. His Honour, in summing up, detailed the two conllietiiig stories before the court. Plaintiff, he said, assorted that he was going down a broad hill ou his bicycle ou his correct side Defendant came round the corner, cutting it. and then came over ou his wrong side and ran, into the boy. If the jury accepted plaintiff s story, then defendant was guilty of negligence, and it should find lor plaintiff.

Ou the other baud, ilo’ciuJatit S ai ( ] that he ciiino around the corner on his correct side. Plaintiff, defendant alleged, was on his wrong side, and in order to avoid him defendant swerved to. bis right in order to avoid a collision. But that was 100 late, and the accident happened. If the jury believed this <story, then plaintiff could not .succeed, “Questions of fact are for the jury, and not for me to decide,” his Honour said.