CYCLIST'S NEGLECT

Evening Post, Volume CX, Issue 135, 5 December 1930, Page 3

CYCLIST'S NEGLECT

FAILURE TO KEEP LOOK-OUT

That a-cyclist should have co-operat-ed, with a motorist to avoid an accident was the view, taken by Mr. J..S. Barton, S.M., in a case in the Magistrate's Court in which Edward Hart, of Wellington, a waterside worker, sued Vf. H. Cox, of Wellington, a salesman, claiming £.290 17s Cd for personal injuries ■'received through a collision between his bicyelo and Cox's motorcar. ': Tlio plaintiff said that on 7th March last he was riding a bicycle along,Wakeficld street from the direction of Clyde quay towards 'the Town Hall, intending to go to his work on the waterfront. Ho was on.his proper side of the road and going at a reasonable pace when the defendant drove a motor-car from the. Todd Motor Company garago entrance over the footpath in a ncglij gent manner. The- allegations of negligence made against the defendant were: (a) Tailing to keep a proper look-out; (b)-failing to give a.proper warning; (c) failing to observe tho rule of giving way to traffic on his right; (d) exceeding a reasonable limit of speed. A collision occurred and, the plaintiff, as a result of the accident, suffered, loss of several teeth and permanent injury rto his top lip, and was in hospital for some weeks. , For the defence, it was .contended that Cox had proceeded slowly ,out of tho garage entrance, and had noticed tho cyclist some- 30 feet away riding towards him. The accident had occurred over 15 feet from the kerb, and the cyclist : had run into and struck the right rear mudguard of the motor-car. The defendant maintained that had the cyclist been keeping a proper lookout lie Ixad ample room to go behind the ear and nearer to the kerb. Counsel for tho defendant submitted that the plaintiff had failed to give affirmative proof of negligence by the defendant,'and that on the, undisputed facts the plain inference was contributory negligence on Hart's part. It was also submitted that if there was. negligence on Cox's part the proximate cause of the accident was' the joint negligence of both or negligence so intermixed that it could not be separated. Judgment should be for the defendant. After hearing the evidence the Magistrate found that no evidence of negligence against the defendant had been proved. He said that he accepted the evidence of the defendant and his witnesses that the speed at which he came from the garago was reasonable and that proper warning had been given. Had tho cyclist been keeping a proper look-out he would have noticed the course of the motor-car and would then. as he should have done, co-operated with tho driver in avoiding the accident. In his opinion tho real cause of the accident was the failure of the cyclist to. exercise reasonable care. Judgment was entered for the defendant with costs. Mr. J. A. Scott appeared, for the plaintiff and Mr. W. E. Leicester for the defendant.