MOTOR COLLISION

Evening Post, Volume CXXI, Issue 31, 6 February 1936, Page 15

MOTOR COLLISION

CAR AND BICYCLE

HUTT ROAD ACCIDENT

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES

A claim for £503 Is damages arising 1 out of a collision between a motor-car and a bicycle on the Hutt Road on September 21 last was heard by Mr. Justice Ostler and a jury in the Supreme Court today. The plaintiff was Alexander Suther- ■ land, of Lower Hutt, motor mechanic, and the defendant was Peter Anthony . Kraus, carpenter, Upper Hutt. Mr. O. C. Mazengarb and Mr. D. McGrath appeared for the plaintiff, and the Hon. W. Perry for the defendant. The statement of claim set out that on Saturday, September 21, 1935, the plaintiff was riding a bicycle along the main road, Lower Hutt, at its intersection with Woburn Road. At the same time the defendant was driving his motor-car across the Hutt Bridge and proceeding in a northerly direction along the main road. It was alleged that the defendant so negligently managed his motor-car that he brought it into collision with the plaintiff. The negligence of the defendant, it was alleged, consisted in (a) failing to keep a proper look-out; (b) failing to sound the horn or otherwise give warning of his approach; (c) failing to stop or slow down before colliding with the plaintiff; (d) travelling at too fast a speed; (c) failing to steer clear of the plaintiff. As a result of the collision the plaintiff sustained injuries to his left arm and hand, and blows on the chest and back, with consequential injury to the kidneys. As a further result of the collision, the plaintiff's bicycle and clothing were damaged.. The plaintiff .had incurred expense for hospital and medical treatment, and had lost the wages which he would otherwise have earned, and he had endured much pain and suffering, and ■ would be prevented from following any occupation for a further period, and would suffer a permanent partial disablement through the injury to his left wrist. Plaintiff claimed as special damages: Loss of wages £76, hospital and medical accounts £22 Is, damage to clothing and bicycle £5, and general damages £400—a total of £503 Is. A GENERAL DENIAL. The statement of defence was a general denial of the allegations in the statement of claim. Defendant claimed that the collision was solely due to the ' negligence of the plaintiff in the following respects: (a) failing to keep to his correct side of the road; (b) failing to keep a proper look-out; (c) cutting the corner of Woburn Road and High Street; (d) riding his cycle without lights; (c) failing to stop or slow down before colliding with defendant's car; and (f) failing to steer clear of defendant's car. In opening the case Mr. Mazengarb said that at the time of the accident plaintiff was riding to his home about 6 o'clock in the evening. He saw the car coming across the bridge. Plaintiff judged that he had ample time to cross the Hutt Road into Woburn Road before the car reached him. He was struck by. the right mudguard of the car and was knocked down on to the road. Defendant got out of the car, and came back to the scene of the accident. ' Defendant said he was sorry, ■ but that ,he did not see plaintiff on • his-bicycle.' After the accident, plaintift;was taken to the Home of Compassion and'was'attended to by a doctor, ' who found that plaintiff was suffering from various injuries, including injury to the kidneys. HEARING OF EVIDENCE. Plaintiff gave.evidence on the lines' of his statement of claim and of counsel's statement. He said that although the sun had set, it was perfectly light at the time of the accident. ■Plaintiff was proceeding slowly and diagonally to a fish-shop when the motor-car wept over the front wheel of the bicycle, buckled the wheel, and struck plaintiff. He had suffered severe injuries, including bleeding from the kidneys. He was not yet in a fit state to dc his ordinary work. William Woodcock, bicycle mechanic, estimated that the cost of repairing the bicycle would be £3 15s. The state of the bicycle was consistent with the evi,dence that it had been struck on the side by a motor-car. Evidence 'was given by Dr. D. B. Barron in regard to plaintiff's condition after the accident and also at several subsequent period. Witness last saw plaintiff, in January. In witness's .opinion plaintiff was not fit for work; he was in a very nervous condition. (Proceeding.)