MOTOR AND CYCLE

Evening Post, Volume CXVI, Issue 27, 1 August 1933, Page 9

MOTOR AND CYCLE

WEST COAST COLLISION

JURY'S VERDICT SUSTAINED

Eeservcd judgment has been given by Mr. Justico Eeed in the easo of Smith v. 1-lolling, a Greymouth case in connection with which there was legal argument on the jury's verdict at "Wellington on July 19. His Honour found in favour of tho plaintiff, holding that there was evidence on which the jury were entitled to find in his favour. The accident occurred on the Westport.Grey mouth highway near Eunanga oil Sunday, February -8, 1931, and tho hearing took place before Mr. Justico Seed and a jury at Greymouth on March 1 last. The plaintiff, a coalminer, was riding a motor-cycle with a pillionrider, and on descending a winding hill he met the defendant's motor-car, when, though the road was nineteen feet wide, a collision took place, and the plaintiff was thrown into a ditch on his proper side, his leg being fractured, and subsequently amputated. He claimed damages on the ground (a) that the defendant had failed to keep a proper look-out, (b) that he failed to manage his car with due care and skill, and (c) that ho caused the car to swerve suddenly to his right, thereby causing the accident. The jury, by a three-fourths majority, found in favour of tho plaintiff on the first two issues, but were unable to agree on, the third. They found, further, that the plaintiff managed his cycle with due care and skill, and kept to his proper side. The plaintiff's counsel moved for judgment accordingly, but tho defendant's counsel moved for a new trial, or, alternatively, for a nonsuit on the ground that tho plaintiff, having founded his case- on the allegation that the car swerved to the wrong side of the highway and the jury having failed to agree, on an 'answer to that issue, their verdict was defective, and that there should accordingly be a new trial or alternatively a nonsuit. In the course of his judgment Mr. Justice Eeod found that, inasmuch as the jury had found that tho plaintiff kopt to his proper side, and that the defendant failed to manage his car with due care and skill, there was- evidence in favour of the view taken by the jury, and, moreover, counsel for tho plaintiff in addressing the jury had put it to them that what was called a swerve was really due to the fact that tho defendant disregarded tho bend in the road and went straight ahead, with the result that he crossed to tho wrong side. Further, the defendant had admitted that immediately before the collision he started to quango his gear, when he would necessarily havo ono hand on the wheel, and accordingly the jury were entitled to take the view tha.t having only ono hand on the wheel he crossed to the wrong side. by reason of his disregarding the curve. Judgment was accordingly given for, the plaintiff for the amount awarded, iSl£36 7s, with costs according to scale, and disbursements and witnesses' expenses, the costs of interlocutory proceedings to be ascertaiiicdVby the Registrar. . . ■• Mr. P. J. o'Began appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr v - E. L. Cuthbcrt (Christchurch) for the defendant.