COLLISION AT HUTT

Evening Post, Volume CXXVIII, Issue 15, 18 July 1939, Page 10

COLLISION AT HUTT

TAXI AND BICYCLE

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES

A collision between a taxi and a bicycle near the traffic island at the western approach to the r Hutt Bridge formed the basis of an action heard by the Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers) and a jury of twelve in the Supreme Court today.

The plaintiff was Reginald Charles Robinson ,a bricklayer, of Lower Hutt, for whom Mr. O. C. Mazengarb appeared, and the defendant was William James Trigger, a taxi-driver, of Lower Hutt, whose case was conducted by Mr. E. Parry.

In his statement of claim, the plaintiff said that on the evening of October 27 last he was riding his bicycle in Railway Avemie approaching the bridge, and at the same time the defendant was driving hi_ car in the same direction as, and behind, him. The defendant, it was alleged, negligently ran the plaintiff down, the negligence consisting of failing to, keep a proper look-out, driving at an excessive speed, and failing to steer clear of the plaintiff. As a result of the collision the plaintiff received injuries, the most serious of which was a fracture of the left leg. He claimed £535 general damages raid £265 special damages.

STATEMENT OF DEFENCE

The statement of defence denied that the defendant was driving in the same direction as and behind the plaintiff. The defendant denied that he ran the plaintiff down and that he was negligent, but he admitted that a collision occurred. He said that the plaintiff rode his bicycle from Victoria Street on to the approach to the bridge, where the collision occurred with the car, I which was proceeding from Railway Avenue. The collision, it was alleged, was caused entirely by the negligence of the plaintiff in one or more of the following respects: (1) Failing to keep a. proper look-out; (2) riding from behind a car which was travelling westwards, into the front of the defendant's car, which was travelling eastwards; (3) riding a bicycle after dark without any or sufficient light; (4) riding at an excessive speed.

Alternatively the defendant said that if he was negligent, which he denied, the plaintiff contributed to the accident by his own negligence.

When the plaintiff's case had finished counsel conferred and Mr. Mazengarb then announced that Mr. Parry had offered £600 and costs in full settlement and that the plaintiff had agreed to accept that.

Judgment -was entered accordingly.