NON-SUITED

Evening Post, Volume CXXV, Issue 80, 5 April 1938, Page 6

NON-SUITED

PLAINTIFF FAILS

MOTOR-CYCLE ACCIDENT

Without calling on the evidence for the defence Mr. Justice Reed in the Supreme Court yesterday afternoon non-suited Charlotte Jane Durrant, a widow, who claimed £1642 15s* damages from Percy Daniel Mullins, an electrician, as the result of a' collision on Broadway, Miramar, in ' NoIvember last, between Mullins's car land a motor-cycle driven by her son, Robert Harvey Durrant. The latter 'died under an anaesthetic while injuries received in the accident were being attended in hospital. The jury of twelve was visiting the scene of the accident when his Honour, heard counsel's argument oh the non-suit application and gave his decision.

Mr. W. Perry appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. G. G. G. Watson and Mr. W. P. Shorland for the defendant. Evidence by Alfred James Archer, a Wellington City Council traffic inspector, and by Wilson Stanley Croft, a tramway employee, completed the case for the plaintiff.1 Applying for a non-suit and for judgment tor the defendant, 'Mr. Watson based 'his argument on three submissions: Firjst, that the plaintiff's case 1 proved a breach by the deceased of i the regulation forbidding passing withiin t the, area of an intersection; second, that, the plaintiff's case proved a breach by the deceased of the regulation forbidding travelling at such, a speed that it was impossible to stop either in half the clear distance ahead or short of a vehicle ahead if it stopped suddenly;; third, that the plaintiff's case proved that the deceased either saw or should have seen the defendant's car moving continuously to the right in ample* time to avoid it. .

Mr. Watson submitted that the deceased's -breaches, of the two regulations were continuous up to the point of impact and were the effective cause of the accident. ' - Mr. Perry submitted in reply that the real and effective cause of the accident was the negligent turn made by the defendant long before he came into the area of the intersection.

HIS HONOUR'S OPINION.

His Honour said that he could not see how a person driving diagonally across the road could be said to be the direct cause of the accident. The car driver had committed no breach of any bylaw or regulation. i Mr. Perryi submitted he was cutting the corner. .

His Honour said he could jnot see haw:, the car driver had been negligent. "He , was entitled to drive as he did if htj'.'Were hot going into the in' t'erscction/and the fact that he was going t intb -'the intersection -'/could ,not make "his action' wrong arid' a breach of regulation. - - In -.si vine %his decision 'his Ho

giving...... -.. .... /u----commented that the accident occurred in-tiie'middle of the day on a broad roa^-tylth no traffic.on ,it. The car driver was traveHing(,diagonally across the road and there was no sudden movement on his-part.. The car was travelling admittedly quite slowly when-the mdtpr-cyclist, approaching from* the rear, rah into' it. Bie latter's explanation was' that 'he thought the car Was turning to go, up a'street on the left; that was what the movement suggested to him. There was no evidence of any sudden movement by the car, its whole action being deliberate. It was the grossest negligence to assume that the car was necessarily turning to,the left. The motor-cyclist had the "opportunity' of stopping or of slowing to make sure where the car was going. His Honour thought the plaintiff should be non-suited.