UNUSUAL CLAIM

Evening Star, Issue 23724, 4 November 1940, Page 6

UNUSUAL CLAIM

PILLION-RIDER PROCEEDS AGAINST MOTOR-CYCLIST HEAD-ON COLLISION “ It is fortunate I am not sitting as a coroner instead of as a magistrate,’ stated Mr J. K. Bartholomew, S.M., in the Magistrate's Court, when a civil claim of an unusual nature came before him this morning. _ The case was one wherein the pillionrider of a motor cycle sued the rider for damages arising out of injuries received when the motor cycle collided with a motor car. The plaintiff was Benjamin Stanley David Blackmore (Mr 0. O'. Stevens), the defendant Dennis Shea (represented by IMr B. A. Quelch). Blackmore claimed £294 14s 9d general and special damages as a result of the accident. He alleged that he was pillion-rider on a cycle ridden by Shea in April last on a return trip from Christchurch. When between Kartigi and Shag I’oint the cycle collided with a motor car coming in the opposite direction, and driven by George William Bren.

The plaintiff alleged that the collision was caused by the negligent riding of the cycle by Shea in that he failed to keep a proper look-out, to keep to his correct side of the road, and to reduce speed. Ho suffered injury, and claimed £219 14s 9d for loss of wages and hospital expenses, and £75 general damages. Evidence given by Uren, the driver of the motor car, was that on Easter Monday evening he' was driving in the vicinity of Shag Point, when he noticed a light coming towards him in the distance. Ho reduced speed and kept to his correct side of the road. The oncoming vehicle proved to be a motor cycle, and i.t drove straight into the front of his car. When he came to a stop the rider of the motor cycle was lying in front of the car, and the pillionrid.cr had been thrown to the side. Damages amounting to £6O had been caused to his car.

Evidence was given by Constable Kelly, of Palmerston, who inspected the scene of the accident. At the point of impact, he stated, there was a pool of oil and water on the joadway. The car had been on its correct side when the collision occurred.

At the conclusion of evidence, His Worship remarked that the two young men had had a very fortunate escape. Ho might have been sitting as a coroner instead of as a magistrate. The evidence was perfectly clear, and that of the constable important in that it disclosed the positions of the vehicles at the time of impact. The rider of the motor cycle was still in a fog as to precisely what happened. In any 'event, lie could not have been paying anything like the attention to his driving he should have to have allowed him to ride head on into'the motor car.

Tho accident had been brought about by the unfortunate defendant continuing along at a fairly high speed on the wrong side of the road and not looking for oncoming traffic. It had been suggested, continued His Worship, that no liability rested with the rider of the motor cycle, as the plaintiff was more or less in association witli him. To carry such a passenger was a common and ordinary incident or the road, as.in a motor car. Judgment was for. the plaintiff for £252 14s 9d, 'with court costs (£3 17s) solicitors’ fees (£l3 12s 9d), and witnesses’ expenses (14s) .