WATAROA ACCIDENT

Grey River Argus, 4 June 1937, Page 8

WATAROA ACCIDENT

JURY AWARDS £1124 Motorist Held Negligent REHEARING IN SUPREME COURT. The hearing of a claim for £1,120 17s damages for injuries, arising out of a collision between a motor-car and a motor-cycle, at Wataroa, on February 26th, 1934, was concluded at the Supreme Court at Greymouth yesterday before His Honour, Mr Justice Northcroft, and a jury. The case was by way of re-hearing by consent. Th e plaintiff, Corry Robert Coulson, a carperter, of Paroa, alleged negligence on the part of William Smith, farmer, of Matainui, South Westland, in backing his car out of a gateway on February 26th 1934, involving plain, tiff in an accident, whereby he sustain. e d injuries of a permanent nature. Plaintiff alleged that defendant had been negligent in not allowing plaintiff to pass by the rear of his car. The plaintiff claimed by way of special damages (1) 134 weeks’ wages at £5 5s per week —£703 10s; (2) Hospital and medical expenses £67 7s; (3) general damages £350. Negligene e was denied by defendant, who asserted that plaintiff was negligent in that he failed to keep a proper look-out, failed to keep to his proper side of tb e road in passing the ear, driving his motor-cycle at an excessive speed in the circumstances, and failing to stop his machine in time to avoid a collision, and .in failing to manage it with due care and skillPlaintiff originally brought proceed, ings in th e Supreme Court, on June Bth 1936, when he secured a verdict in his favour from the jury. Legal points were reserved for later argument, and this took place at Christchurch, on August 27th, 1936, when His Honour reserved his decision. This was given on December I.lth, when plaintiff was non-suited with costs. Mr C. J. O’Rcgan, of Wellington, presented the plaintiff’is case, wfailst Mr W. F. Tracy, of Christchurch, anc. with him, Mr M. B. Janies, of Hokitika, appeared for defendant. The- following jury was engaged on th P case: Allan N. Baker (foreman), Edward Samuel Brown, Michael Archibald' Brown, Hugh Joseph Brown, WiL liam Ernest Larcombe, John William Barclay, Russel Cecil Poole, James Leslie Patterson, Hugh Blanehfield, Richard Reynolds, George Greg °Y Taylor, Douglas Jarvis. Five P 1 ’ tive jurors were challenged by Tracv and six by Mr O’Regah. The evidence of the plaintiff was taken on th e previous day. Dr H C Barrett. Medical Superintendent, ’ Grey Hospital, gave evidence of the injuries sustained by plaintiff, which included a dislocated shoulder, whilst, the shoulder cap was torn away and this caused a paralysis of the left arm. Plaintiff attended hospital regularly for treatment for 15 months. Over the past twelve months there had' been a great improvement in Coulson’s arm H e considered that the disability was 25 per cent at least. This concluded plaintiff’s case. Mr. Tracy made a formal application for a non-suit or for judgment for defendant on the ground that the plaintiff on his own evidence had shown that there was no negligence on the part of defendant, and which had allegedly caused the accident; but that it was th P negligence of the plain, tiff himself which had caused the injury. His Honor said that he did not propose to hear argument upon this. He would reserve Mr. Tracy’s right to deal with this later. The one issife to decide was whether defendant backed his car the width of the road so as to prevent plaintiff passing at the back of the ear This allegation was denied He submitted that nobody should have ridden a motor cycle down the road as plaintiff did. as when he put on his brakes the motor cycle skidded. Furthermore the defence relied o n the fact that plaintiff, even though he said he could hav e pulled up in 46 feet did not do so, and therefore did not have his machine under proper control..

William Frank Ashley , Westland County Engineer, produced a plan of the locality of the accident. William' Smith, the defendant, stated that h e had left his car in McBride’s right-of-way. As Mr. Purcell moved off in his ear, witness backed his own car half-way across the road and then forward again to the north, leaving the car protruding about three feet on to the main track road. He had pulled into this position to allow the cycle to nas:. There was a dear nine feet of roadway, but plaintiff came round th fi back of the ear on the wrong side, struck a ditch and was bumped off. The cycle did not touch the ear. Mrs. Ellen Blanche Smith, wife of defendant gave corroborative evidence. Malcolm Mcßride farmer of Wataroa. described the movements of defendant’s car in a similar manner to Smith’s evidence-. Michael Purcell. Wataroa. gave evidence that after leaving Mcßride’s he saw plaintiff approaching on his wrong side, hut he passed witness on his correct side Plaintiff was travelling a hit faster than the average motor cycle. Plantiff switched on his light as he apnroaehed witness’s car. Robert Williams, road surfaceman. Wataroa. gave evidence of having trimmed totara" trees near Mcßride’s pr>or to thn accident. Thomas Malcolm Mcßride, farmer of Wataroa. also gave evidence. His Honor intimated that the following issues would b 0 placed before the .Turv:—

(10 Was Defendant negligent? (2). If so wherein was Ins negligence? l'3'i Was plaint’ff negligent? (4) If so wherein was plaintiff negligent? (5) What are the damages? JURY FINDS FOR PLAINTIFF. Following addresses by counsel, His Honour gave his summing up, and the .jury retired at 1 p.m, and returned at 3.30 p.m., with a verdict in favour of plaintiff. The jury arrived at the following decisions on the issues placed before them:— (1) Was the defendant negligent?— Answer, yes. (2) If so wherein was the defendant negligent?—Answer, defendant knew the eyele was coming and only one half mile or a little more away. By the time he looked up the road and' saw the cyclist, then walked to the ear, started

1 up and' reversed, the cyclist must have f been very close when Smith backed on to the road. If the cyclist was travm . ling at thirty miles per hour he wouid have reached defendant in appiox1 mately one minute from the time efendant saw him. Defendant gave! nJ , sign by blowing the horn or otherwise 1 that he intended to back on to the t road. In our opinion defendants a<_tion would not be done by a man using ‘ ordinary reasonable care. f 3) Was there contributory neglig--1 cnee -on the part of the plaintiff?—Anr (4) If so wherein was the plaintiff 1 negligent?—Answer • . (5) What damages did the plaint;,! suffer? —Answer, (a) special £774 17s; " (b) general £350. His Honour asked if it would be con. " venient for counsel to place before him to-day the reserved question. 1 Mr Tracy said that he was prepared to have leave reserved. His Honour indicated that the ease could be adjourned for further consideration, possibly to Christchurch Mr O’Regan moved for judgment. His Honour noted Mr O’Regan’s motion and adjourned the case. On his application, Mr Tracy was granted eight days to move for a non- 1 suit or a new trial.