SEQUEL TO MOTOR COLLISION

Evening Star, Issue 20982, 22 December 1931, Page 16

SEQUEL TO MOTOR COLLISION

MAGISTRATE'S COURT CLAIM In the Magistrate’s Court this morning, Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M., gave his reserved judgment in the case in which James Bromner, of Waitati, proceeded against Eva Helen Forsyth, of Otakou, claiming special and general damages amounting to £2Bl 10s, stated to be the result of a collision between plaintiff’s motor cycle and defendant’s motor car. The statement of claim set out that on February 4 last a motor cyele belonging to the plaintiff, and driven by him, was proceeding from Waitati to Dunedin along King street, near the Gardens, when a motor car approaching from the opposite direction, belonging to and driven by the defendant, collided with the motor cycle, the plaintiff being injured'and bis motor cycle dam-’ aged. It was alleged that as a result of the accident be was unable to resume bis employment, and that the collision was caused by the negligent and unskilful manner in which the defendant. drove and managed her motor car by driving on the wrong side of the road, failing to keep a proper look-out for approaching Vehicles, and failing to take proper measures to prevent the motor car from colliding with the motor cycle. It was further alleged that after the motor car ran into plaintiff’s motor cycle the defendant controlled and managed it so negligently and unskilfully that she failed to stop it within a reasonable distance, and in consequence the car forced and dragged the plaintiff along the street for a considerable distance. The plaintiff claimed £lßl 10s special damages for loss and expense incurred, and also £IOO as general damages. The evidence was reviewed at length by the magistrate, who stated that defendant was on her wrong side of the road within a few feet of the kerb, and no sufficient reason —in fact, no reason at all—bad been shown for her being in that position. Plaintiff on rounding the curve of the road was faced with an emergency on seeing defendant’s car twelve to fifteen yards distant. The plaintiff's action in seeking to avoid this peril was a reasonable one, and lie was not answerable for its failure. Defendant bad failed to -prove contributory evidence on the part of the plaintiff, who was entitled to recover. A further cause of action was also alleged by plaintiff in that defendant failed to pull up in a reasonable distance after the collision and dragged plaintiff a considerable distance across the road, whereby ho was further injured. His Worship said that defendant was also liable for negligence subsequent collision. This act of r.jgligence might not be responsible for all the damages claimed, but as be had also found for plaintiff on other grounds he did not need to consider this aspect. Judgment was entered for plaintiff for £276 5s 6d, costs amounting to £22 2s 9d being allowed.