NO OBLIGATION

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 107, 2 November 1926, Page 10

NO OBLIGATION

CYCLIST'S CLAIM FAILS.

A sequel to an accident in Adelaide roaa on 23rd August was heard in the Magistrate's Court to-day when Charles Edward Stevens claimed from Clarence Copeland Thomas, dairy farmer, £9 4s 6d, as compensation for damage to his bicycle and clothing, alleged to have been caused by negligence on the part of the driver of the defendant's motorlorry.

Plaintiff caid that as he was passing the defendant's truck it moved out from tho kerb, to the right without giving any warning. An overtaking motor-lorry came abreast of him, and he was jammed between the two vehicles, the former truck touching him on the right arm and knocking him off his machine. His cycle was damaged and his trousers torn.

To Mr. S. A. Wiren (for Thomas): He was not sure whether he hit the defendant's lorry.

A City Council roadman gave evidence that he was standing in the gutter, and that the defendant's lorry moved out to tho right to avoid him. No warning was given.

The defendant's son, who was a passenger in the lorry, said that he looked round before they started on. He saw the approaching lorry, but did not see Stovcns. The truck was going only a short distance, and it kept well in to tho kerb.

The driver of the lorry gave eorro borativo evidence.

In his judgment, Mr. E. Page, S.M., said that ho did not think there was any obligation on a motorist's part to give warning when he moved from a stationary posit/on to go straight on. Ho considered that the plaintiff had run some risk in passing the defendant's lorry when the other vehicle wag overtaking him. Judgment would be ontorcd for the defendant, with coats.