TWO VERSIONS

Evening Post, Volume CX, Issue 135, 5 December 1930, Page 11

TWO VERSIONS

CAUSE OF AN ACCIDENT

PORTER'S CLAIM FOR INJURIES

The Chief Justice, Sir Michael Myers, was asked to determine, in a civil case commenced in the Supreme Court this morning, whether George Alfred 'Flitcroft, a porter, or Arthur Collins, a taxi-driver, caused a collision between Flitcroft's motor-cycle and a motor-ear driven by Collins in Tasman street in March, as a result of which Flitcroft was severely injured. Flitcroft, tho plaintiff in the action, who sought to recover £206 special damages and £400 general damages, blamed Collins, and the defendant, Leslie Harman, of "Grey Cabs," Wellington, taxi-proprietor, and owner of the ear driven by Collins, blamed Flitcroft. Mr. AY. E. Leicester appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. H. F. O'Leary for the defendant. SEVERE INJURIES. It was set out in the statement of claim that on 19th March, about .5.45 p.m., Flit-croft was riding a motorcycle along Tasman street in a southerly direction at-a moderate speed when the taxi-cab, driven by Collins, was so negligently or recklessly controlled that a collision occurred, and the plaintiff was gravely injured. The negligence alleged was that the taxidriver carried out a sudden and dangerous manoeuvre across the road in front of tho plaintiff without any warning. Flitcroft was thrown off his motor-cycle, and suffered a compound fracture of the lower right leg and other injuries. He was still a patient |at Wellington Hospital ... : DEFENDANT'S ALLEGATIONS. The statement of defence denied the allegation that Flitcroft was at present incapacitated and nnablo to work, and also denied the allegation of negligence. For a further defence, it was stated that the taxi-driver was desirous of turning his car in ord-er to park on the western side of the street, and that ho slowed down on the eastern side of the street, and then gave an arm signal of his intention to turn, having first looked back and ascertained that there was nothing to impede his turning. While the driver was executing this manoeuvre, it was claimed, Flitcroft rode up' Tasman street in the centre of the road at an excessive speed, and without keeping a, proper look-out, and caused tho collision. The defendant also contended that should it bo proved that the taxi-driver was negligent in the manner; -described in the statement of claim, then the plaintiff, by the exercise of reasonable care, could have avoided the accident, having had the last opportunity of avoiding the collision. In opening the -case for the plaintiff, Mr. Leicester said that Flitcroft had been employed by Messrs. Gamble and Creed, Ltd. It was claimed that he would bo unable to resume employment before 19th January. Mr. Leicester said it was submitted on behalf of the .plaintiff that: (1) In executing a dangerous manoeuvre the taxi-driver should have seen- that the road was clear; (2) if the road was not clear the taxi-driver, should have given some warning signal of his intention to turn; (3) that he should not have turned unless satisfied on reasonable grounds that his warning signal had been seen. Evidence was then called along the linos of the statements of claim arid defence. A man and, his wife, eye-witnesses of the accident, said they did not see the taxi-driver give any warning signal that he was about to turn. In reply to his Honour as to whether it was' not common ground that the speed of the motor-cycle was not excessive, Mr. O'Loary said that although ho had pleaded excessive speed he did not think his evidence would give substantiation. DID NOT SEE CYCLIST. Mr. O'Leary submitted that' Collins did all that he could reasonably have been expected to do, and that had ( Flitcroft been keeping a proper look-' out ho must have seen Collins's signal. Giving evidence, Collins said he had automatically looked at the reflecting mirror in the taxi when coming up the street, but had not seen Flitcroft; neither had he noticed Flitcroft when he commenced, to make the turn-Jn the street. His explanation for that was that Flitcroft must have been following close behind the taxi on the blind side. Before starting to turn he extended his right hand. John Turner, motor-driver, who was in the taxi with Collins, said that as the taxi was starting to make the turn he looked up at the rear-vision mirror and saw the motor-cyclist. Flitcroft's head was turned to the right as though he was ' looking in the direction of Coombe street. Witness could see that a collision was inevitable and sang out "whoa." Fliteroft struck the taxi almost broadside on. His Honour said he thought there was negligence on the part of the defendant's driver, and that that negligence was the direct cause of tho accident. The plaintiff was awarded damages totalling £428 13s, with costs to scale, .witnesses' expenses, and disbursements.