COLLISION IN GLADSTONE ROAD.

Gisborne Times, Volume XLVIII, Issue 4579, 7 June 1917, Page 6

COLLISION IN GLADSTONE ROAD.

CLAXiii FOR EXPENSES. A claim, arising out of a collision i in Gladstone Road, was heard at the | Magistrate’s Court yesterday mornS ing by Mr W. A. Barton, S.M., the j parties being T. Moss, plaintiff, and j Pare Keiha, the owner of the car. I The amount of the claim was £2O. | Mr Burnard appeared! fed plaintiff, | and Mr Dunlop for tlio defendant. John Henry' Reidy, bookbinder, I said that on Saturday, March Ist, he | witnessed a collision. _ A cyclist, the | plaintiff, was proceeding up Gladj stone Road, on the centre of the tram line, as lie saw him. lie saw.a motor car coming towards the Post Office with two wheels inside- the tram rails. . As they approached, the motor car swerved to the right hand side of the road!, and met the cyclist full on. The bicycle was damaged beyond repair; the cyclist went- under the -car; he was dazed when witness reached him. Tile bump i was very severe. Witness did not j remember the horn of the motor car j being sounded until it was almost on i top of the cyclist. There were three I people in -he car. j To Mr Dunlop: The accident took place almost in front of G. Smith's j premises. TJie accident happened) I three or ‘four yards from witness. I From the time he saw the cyclist | first to the accident, about a secondl would have elapsed. The speed of 1 the motor car was 18 to 20 miles an hour, that of the cyclist was about 5 l or 0 miles. They were four or five yards apart when he first saw them. The cyclist was on one side of the tram-line and the motor car was travelling on the other side of the lino —had the driver of the car turned to the left, instead of to the right an accident would have been avoided. The cyclist made an effort to go to the left, but the driver followed. Thecar struck the cyclist slightly on the right hand side. To Mr Burnard; Had the driver kept to the left hand side of the road, no accident would have happened. i To his Worship: Witness was positive that the car was travelling over 10 miles per hour. . { Peter Galloway, shop-fitter,' said j that he knew plaintiff, and was in company with him on March 1, when the accident happened. They were ; cycling across from the Royal ITotcl. j Witness was ahead of plaintiff and ! successfully passed! the approaching motor ear. "Witness saw the cm strike the cycle. The car was travelling right on the tram-line. Hie plaintiff was travelling on the centre , ‘or the tram-line. The value, of the ( plaintiff's bicycle was £lO or £ll and • i was broken beyond repair by the collision. . , ! To Mr Dunlop: They crossed xn© i road on the right hand side. V. non 'witness saw ;■■ lain tiff just before die ; accident, lie was crossing the Lrnmj line. He continued .to mane for lus i own side of the road. 1 To his Worship: The car was travi oiling about 20 miles an hour; he was ■ sure it was travelling more than 15

miles. , To Air Dunlop : Plaintiff was travelling about 8 miles an hour, and it lie had put on more speed lap might have got out of the way. Inc .cyclist was hurrying at the time. , William Powell, carpenter, witnessed the collision; andl gave evidence ; on similar lines to the above witness- : es. The cyclist crossed' the road i at an angle 'of about 45 degrees and he considered that this was the safest thing to do. He went over iminedi- ; ately after the collision; the cyclist and the machine were under the ciU. The driver of the car was as»ted lus : name and lie refused to give it. ! To Mr Dunlop: Witness did not see the plaintiff between leaving the hotel and the accident. { Thomas Moss, plaintiff, m die I course of his eyidenece. stated that 1 his bicycle was of no use to him •now and he did not think it eonld be repaired in Gisborne. Witness ues : struck by tile car and as a result lost tour days’ work. He first noticed • the car when it was about three or ; four yards away. He was near tne i tram track; he may have been on it. i He thought the car struck him on the j right hand side. He had not tune ! to turn either to the left or tne rigli-. : He was looking in front of him when crossing the road. John Mahoney, plumber, gave corroborative evidence. Had the i ules of the road been, observed, the accident would not have happened. Mr Dunlop said 'that the defence was a plea of contributory negligence William Fylc, motor mechanic, employed at Ormond:’s garage, saia tha!on the day or the accident he vm., driving the car for defendant. On ■ account of the roughness, of the road, : lie was driving one wheel on the tram j hue a”a the other on tiie loft hand of the road lie w-s coining | towards the Post Office and was not ! travelling more than 10. miles an I hour. He had received distinctions to drive slowly. Coming into . Gladstone Pond' from Cobden Street ; and seeing no traffic about, lie Jccpt m the position already described. He saw the cyclist when witness passed Olding’s tinsmith shop. The cyclist was coming from the direction of the Royal Hotel and was coming up on his' wrong side; lie was looking _ behind him towards the hotel. When about 15 yards distant from the cyclist, witness sounded the horn, which is a very loudi one. The distance was reduced to about ton yards when the cyclist looked round, seemed confused: and tried to get over to his proper side of the road. He cut round ag- : ain and faced the right hand sidle of the road. It was at that moment that the car struck the cycle. Witness had applied the brakes when about live yards off the cyclist and pulled the car up in her own length. ' To Mr Barnard: Witness saw plaintiff fifteen yards away and he was then travelling on the tram-line. < Plaintiff was then getting over to ; left hand. side. Had., witness then turned! to the left it would bo possible to have avoided an accident, ' but it would have meant hitting the footpath. The plaintiff was looking behind him. Had ho been right- on his left hand side, the accident may | have been avoided, but it was Quito possible that au accident might have , occurred. It was a custom of most- ; Jy all motorists to drive on the tramline.

To Mr Dunlop : Had plaintiff gone (-straight on instead; of turning back ibe would have avoided an accident. ! Plaintiff was travelling faster than : witness. When the bicycle was | picked up the handles of the bicycle | were under the'front axle of the car j and the right' front wheel stood on 1 the back wheel of the bicycle. The ] car struck the bicycle on the .left ' side.

' To Mr Burnard: It was quite possible that the injuries on*" the right side might have been caused by the bicycle striking the man; the car did not strike the man. Maria Keiha, wife of defendant, said that she remembered the accident. Witness was in the car. The ear travelled about ten miles au hour down Gladstone Road. I'll© car was being driven down the tramline, more to the left. Witness saw plantiff a. good! distance from the car, looking behind him. The driver blew bis liorn, and the cyclist wobbled the front wheel of the bicycle andl then crossed in front of, the car.

To Mr Burnnrd: After the accident witness, oil behalf of her 'husband, communicated with Mr Burnard to arrange- a settlement. De fondant' said to her, after Tin interview with Mr Barnard,, that the terms of settlement wero £7 in cash and a bicycle. • £lO was the value,of a bicycle. Witness sent a bicycle to Mr Burnard’s office. This machine Mr Buriiard refused to accept. Some time later witness asked for a week’s extension and she intended to pay £7 10s and givexa bicycle valued' at £lO. -

To Mr Dunlop: The offer was made because they felt sorry for the plaintiff, but did not admit any liability or responsibility for the accident. To Mr Barnard: When speaking to Mr Barnard over the telephone, she sajdi that she thought both were in the wrong. Fred Williams, motor mechanic apprentice, a witness of the collision, in the course of his evidence said that the motorist when within about 15 yards of the cyclist blew bis horn. The car was travelling at the time at about nine miles an hour. The cyclist, when 'about three yards in front of the ear looked behind him. The motorist then started to pull up. By this time the cyclist, who was riding on the left hand side of the road turned to the right. The motorist had just about pulled up and his wheels turned to the right hand side of the road. Had. the motorist kept going on the left hand side of the road lie would have run over the cyclist. The right hand wheel of the car struck l.lie rear wheel of the bicycle. Witness considered that the accident was caused by the cyclist. He appeared to be confused and the motorist had his car under conti 01. After hearing argument upon the matter of law, His Worship, in giving judgment, said that ho was confident that the. accident was due to negligence on the part of defendant in travelling on the centre of the road and in going at a greater speed than was permitted by the by-law. He was satisfied that, if the defendant liadl observed the by-law, and the rule of • the road, the accident would have been avoided. He could 1 not find any evidence of plaintiff being guilty of contributory negligence, therefore' plaintiff must succeed. Ho awarded plaintiff £8 for the bicycle, £2 14s wages, £1 6s medical expenses, and £3 general damages, a total of £ls; in addition to Court and witnesses’ expenses, totalling £4 14s.