VERDICT FOR £2660

Evening Post, Volume CXVIII, Issue 36, 11 August 1934, Page 13

VERDICT FOR £2660

INJURED MOTOR-DRIVER

RUN INTO BY MOTOR-

CYCLIST

Special and general damages amounting in all to £2660 woro awarded by the jury last evening at tho conclusion oi' the trial in .tho Supreme Court of the iiction in which William Harvey Richards, motor-driver, of Dannevhkc, proceeded against David Kilpatriek,' wool-elasser, and Charles Leslie Turner, wool-classor, both of Kaiwurra. 'Che plaintiff, with two other men, was siphoning some benzino iulo a motorlorry on tho main road at Heretaunga on the evening of April 17 wlicn ho was run into and injured by a motorcycle ridden by the seeond-namod dofo'ndant. He was taken to hospital and sis days later his left leg had to bo amputated. Tho motor-eyelo was registered •in Kilpatrick 's name, and for that reason, and that alone, he was joined as. a defendant. The claim made by Richards was for ?3000 general damages and £175 4s special damages. The Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers) presided. Mr. O. C. Mazengarb, of Wellington, with him Mr. P. W. Dorrington, of Dannevirke, represented tho plaintiff, and Mr. W. E. Leicester appeared for the defendants. The plaintiff's evidence was taken at Wellington Hospital before tho Deputy Registrar, and it was read to the jury later. His evidence relating to the actual accident followed the lines of that given by witnesses yesterday morning, and outlined in yesterday's "Post." At'tho conclusion of tho plaintiff's case, Mr. Leicester said he was .not calling ovidenee. His Honour said that under those circumstances ho would not put issues to the jury. "I would like your Honour to put general issuos as to whether the plaintiff or the defendant was guilty of uegligonee," said Mr. Leicester. His Honour said that tho ' question of whether issues should bo put or not was in tho discretion of tho presiding Judge. Ho did not think this was a case, for issues. He would note, however, that an application for issues had been made) though the matter was not one that was appealable Addressing tho jury, Mr. Mazongarb referred to the evidence that Turner was wearing a peaked cap, and suggested as a possible explanation of tho accident that lie was riding the motor-cyclo with Ms head down and was not keeping a sufficient look-out. Counsel said ho did not press for anything, more than a sum the jury thought the plaintiff reasonably was entitled to recover. Ho suggested, however, that the plaintiff's claim had been amply proved. SYMPATHY TOE PLAINTIFF. Undoubtedly, said Mr. Leicester in his address to tho jury, they would feel, as anyone would feel, a very great "deal of sympathy for tho plaintiff, but ho had a duty to perform as counsel for the defendants. Tho fact that Turner had not been called to . give evidence had been commented upon, but if ho had been put into the witness-box time would only havo been occupied on what was largely common ground between tho parties. While it was true that Turner had a duty to keep a proper look-out, so, too, had the plaintiff, because he had parked his motorlorry with tho right-hand wheels on the bitumen. Ho asked the jury to consider whether if it had been tho cyclist who had been injured as a result of running into the men standing alongside tho lorry and he had brought a claim for damages, they would hold that ho had been wholly to blame. With the exception oi'i tho two items relating to hire of taxis and wages, counsel did not disputo the claim for special damages. In regard to the claim 6f £3000 for general damages Mr. L'eiccster suggested that, tho plaintiff unfortunately had sost a leg, it did not necessarily follow that all avenues of omploymont would bo closed to him. In his summing-up, his Honour said that tho charge against Turner really was that ho had not kept a proper look-out and that that had caused the collision. His Honour referred to a passage in the plaintiff's ovidenco in which tho plaintiff was recorded as having said that he was in the Upper I-lutfc Court a few weoks ago when he heard Turner say in evidence that he saw the truck a chain away, but could havo seen it 100 yards away and he took a chance that there was no one standing with the truck., What did that mean? Did tho jury think they need, go any further than that? If they accepted that statement they could find that Turner was guilty of negligence. His Honour directed tho jury on the question of contributory. negligence and the principlo of tho last opportunity rule, and then dealt with the question of d«mages. The jury retired just after 5 p.m., and returned with the verdict at (3 p.m.