CLAIM FOR £1646

Dominion, Volume 28, Issue 256, 26 July 1935, Page 15

CLAIM FOR £1646

Chinese Motor-cyclist Hurt

In Collision

LAMBTON QUAY ACCIDENT

A £1646 accident damages claim was brought in the Wellington Supreme Court yesterday by a half-caste Chinese against a taxi-driver. One of the passengers in the car was Mr. 11. I. O’Leary, K.C., who, with Mrs. O’Leary, was on his way to join the Hon. W. Perrv. M.L.C., and Mrs. Ferry and accompany them to Government House. In the court Mr. Perry acted as counsel for the taxi-driver. The claim was heard before Mr. Justice Smith and a jury and had not been completed before the adjournment yesterday evening. Plaintiff, who had been riding a motor-cycle, was Sue Ying, a fruiterer, of Eastbourne, and the taxi-driver was Bertram Alfred Vile, Wellington. Mr. C. A. L, Treadwell, with him Mt’. IL J- V. James, appeared for plaintiff.

Negligence Allegations.

At,about 8 p.m, on October 3. 1934. while he was riding his motor-cycle north along Lambton Quay, defendant, who was travelling south, managed his car so negligently that he collided with the cycle, plaintiff alleged. It was claimed that, defendant’s negligence consisted in driving on the wrong side of the road, failing to keep a proper lookout and to give adequate warning of his intention to turn across the line of traffic, and driving at a speed which, in the circumstances, was excessive. As a result of the collision plaintiff suffered from shock and injuries to his right leg. At Wellington Hospital he had received and was stii’ receiving medical attention. As a result of the accident, the claim stated, he would be put to future expense for hospital, medical and othei treatment. Through the accident his business iiad depreciated considerably and lie had been put to the expense of employing a manager and an assistant to look after his shop. Therefore he claimed £44(1 as special damages and £l2OO as general damages.

The statement of defence alleged that the collision was due to plaintiff’s negligence: lie had failed to keep a proper lookout, was travelling at an excessive speed, failed to keep his cycle under proper control by steering.clear or otherwise avoiding defendants vehicle. failed to give way to traffic approaching from bis right, and failed to keep his cycle as far as practicable to the loft of the street. Although the accident had happened over eight months ago. it had not been possible to bring the matter to court previously on account of very grave iniurios plaintiff had suffered. Mr. Treadwell said. It would take another nine months before he would be restored to anything like his normal health. Ho would always lie affected to some extent by his injuries. “No Accident in 21 Years.” The defendant was a taxi-driver who had been driving for 21 years ami m all that time had never before been involved in an accident, said Mr. Perry, presenting the ease for the defence. “On the evening of the accident lie called at 7.55 o’clock for Mr. and Mrs. O'Leary, who intended to come up to my house, as a matter of fact, for the purpose of taking my wife and myself out for (lie evening,' 1 lie continued. 'Ou tin wav tiiis accident happened.” The driver himself. Mr. O’Leary and a bystander on fhe footpath would gi'C evidence in support of the defendants contention that there was no negligence whatever except on the part of the cyclist. Mr. Perry said. The taxi was driven down on the correct side of Molesworth Street, crossed the tramlines on Lambton Quay, and began to make the turn into Bowen Street. Mr. O’Leary, who had been sitting in the back seat not behind the driver and had a good view, would say the turn was made in a reasonable manner. Defendant did everything humanly possible to avoid the accident.

Tlie witnesses called included, tor the defence, Mr. O’Leary.