DEATH OF MOTORCYCLIST

Dominion, Volume 31, Issue 162, 5 April 1938, Page 6

DEATH OF MOTORCYCLIST

Action For Damages NONSUIT ENTERED BY COURT An accident on Broirdway, Miramar, on November 27 last, in which a collision occurred between a motor-car and a motor-cycle, and in which the cycll.xo received injuries irnd died subsequently in Wellington Hospital, had a sequel in the Supreme Court, Wellington, yesterday when Charlotte Jane Durrant, widow, mother of the decreased, Robert Harvey Durrant, salesman, aged 24, claimed £1.642/15/- damages from the driver of the car, Pery Daniel Mullins, electrician. His Honour, Mr. Justice Reed, and a jury of 12 heard the case. Mr. W. Perry appeared for plaintiff and Mr. G. G. G. Watson mid Mr. W. P. Shetland for defendant. Plaintiff, in he r statement of claim, said that on the day in question deceased was riding his motor-cycle along Broadway and defendant was driving a car in front of him in the same direction. When approaching the intersection of the Quadrant defendant, it was alleged, negligently and in breach of his statutory duty so drove his car ■that the motor-cycle collided with it and deceased received injuries which resulted in his death. The statement of claim alleged that the negligence of defendant consisted in his failing to give adequate warning of his intention to turn Broadway into the Quadrimt and failing to keep his car under control, _ .

i The damages claimed were: £l3/9/1 fo r damage to the cycle, 9/- for hospital expenses, £2B/17/- for funeral expenses, £lOO for the pain and suffering of deceased and £l5OO for the loss of his expectation of life. Statement of Defence. The statement of defence admitted the collision, but denied all the other allegations of plaintiff. For a further defence it was claimed that the collision was caused by the negligence of deceased in riding at an excessive speed, riding behind another vehicle at such a speed that he could not stop within half the clear distance ahead and could not stop short of the other vehicle if it were to stop suddenly, failing to keep a proper look-out, overtaking within 30 feef before an intersection, attempting to when he had not a clear view of the road and traffic for at least 300 feet ahead, failing to keep as close to the left as practicable, failing to sound the horn or give other warning of his intention to pass and failing to slow down, stop or steer clear of defendant’s vehicle. Evidence by Doctor. Deceased’s injuries consisted of incised wounds to his left leg and face, said Dr. P. P. Lynch, who, in evidence, described the result of a post-mortem examination he made. Death was due to asphyxia from the vomiting and aspiration of stomach material while deceased was under an anesthetic. There had been the usual delay between the admission to hospital and the giving -of the anesthetic to provide against the danger of aspiration of vomited matter, but as sometimes happened the shock of the accident had delayed or stopped the process of digestion. The operation under an anesthetic was essential. Witness noted a degree of arterial degeneration in deceased that was unusual in so young a man. . Cross-examined by Mr, Watson, Dr. Lynch said that the only injuries caused to deceased by the collision were flesh and skin wounds. Mr. IVatson: He did not die as a direct and immediate result of any injuries he received in this accident ? Dr. Lynch: No. Ido not think his injuries could have beeu expected to be fatal at all. I do not think there was any risk of death from the injuries he suffered. Actually he died as the result of vomiting while under the anesthetic, did he not?—“Yes. It was an anesthetic death.” A Hervy Meal. And that is one of the .risks that operating surgeons have to endeavour to eliminate if they can before the operation?— “Yes.”

That is to say, care must be taken if possible not to give an anaesthetic while undigested food is in the stomach?— “Yes. Not too close to a meal. That is very important."

And you knew from your post-mortem that this young man had a heavy meal of meat and other matters shortly before the accident?—“Yes.”

It is common ground-that, he was perfectly conscious when admitted to hospital, so he could have been asked whether he had had a meal,or not recently ?— “Yes?'

There was no reason why. this, operntioii could not have been postponed for a reasonable period, was there? There was no risk of serious and uncontrollable hemorrhage in the meantime?—“l would not like to speak with certainty about that, but I should say that the wounds, were such as to produce considerable* hemorrhage, and there would be some degree- of urgency in attending to the wounds.” If aq experienced surgeon had been attending to the wounds and had he known that the young man had had an exceptionally heavy meal, would he have operated then?—“l think so.” Dr. Lynch added that, he understood that an inquiry was made as to the time of deceased’s last meal, and he thought the length of time allowed before the giving of the anesthetic was reasonable. Tn further cross-examination, Dr. Lynch said it was toward the end of lhe operation that vomiting occurred. He did not think there was anything unusual

in the method of performing the operation. The operation was carried out in :be proper way.

Dr. Lynch said the arterial degeneration was of a pronounced character under the microscope. He agreed witli counsel ’ for defendant that deceased’s life would have been uninsurable and that on ordinary statistics he could not reasonably have expected to attain old age. Precautions Taken. Re-examined by Mr. Perry, .Dr. Lynch said he thought that all precautions that should have been taken by the hospital doctors were taken. Evidence was given by Carol Ronald Durrant, compositor, a brother of deceased, who was a pillion passenger on the motor-cycle; Alfred .Tames Archer, Wellington City Corporation traffic inspector. who was called to the scene of the accident.; and Wilson Stanley Croft, tramway employee, who was riding a motor-cycle along Broadway at the time of the accident. Mr. Watson, applying for a nonsuit or for judgment for defendant at the end of plaintiffs evidence, based his argument on three submissions. First, that plaintiff's ease proved a breach by deceased of the regulation forbidding passing witbing the area of an intersection; secondly, that plaintiff’s ease proved a breach by deceased of the regulation forbidding travelling at Such a speed that it was impossible to stop either in half the elenr distance ahead or short of the vehicle ahead if if stopped suddenly; thirdly, that plaintiff's ease proved that deceased either saw or should have wen the ear moving continuously to the right in ample time to avoid it. The real anil effective cause ot the accident, Mr. Perry .submit ted, was the negligent turn made by defendant long before be came into the area of the intersection. Comment By Judge. Entering a nonsuit, his Honour commented that the accident occurred in the

middle of the day on a broad road with no traffic on it. The car driver was travelling diagonally across the road. There was no sudden movement, on his part. The car was travelling admittedly quite slowly when the motor-cyclist approaching front the rear ran into it. His explanation was that he thought Iho ear was turning to go up a street on the left; that was what the movement suggested to him. There was no evidence of any sudden movement by the ear, its whole motion being deliberate, his Honour said. It was the grossest negligence to assume that thill cur was necessarily turning to the left. The motor-cyclist had the opportunity of stopping or of slowing to make sure where the ear was going if he really did believe that it might be turning to the left.