THIRD PARTY RISK

Hawera Star, Volume L, 20 February 1931, Page 9

THIRD PARTY RISK

JURY AWARDS DAMAGES. ELTHAM COLLISION SEQUEL. A case with some unusual features came before .the Hon. Air. Justice Adams and a jury in the Supreme Court at New Plymouth yesterday, the action being one arising out of "a collision between two motor-cycles on the main road between Eltham and Ngaere on the night of Alay 25. The plaintiff was George Alexander Anderson, for whom Air. A. Ghrystal (with him Air. J. Hessel) appeared, and the defendant was Paul Lehrke (Air. P. O’Dea), the owner of one of the motor-cycles., which at the time of the accident was being Tidden % his brother, F'elix Lehrke, who was killed in the collision. The damages claimed on the ground of the alleged negligence of the rider of the cycle as the .statutory agent- of defendant, were £162 14s as special, and £ISOO as general damages. The unusual features of the case were in the facts that one of the ride ns had been killed and the other could remember nothing of the accident because of the nature of the injuries received, so- that there was no direct or first-hand evidence as to the actual occurrence, and also that the defendant was not the rider of one of the cycles, but the owner of the one, the rider of which was killed, and he came into the matter because of his liability according to the 'plaintiff’s claim, under the third! party provisions of the Alo-tor Vehicles Act.

“This case i;s unique in at least one respect-,” said Air. Ghrystal. “There is no first-hand evidence at all of what took place. Anderson, the plaintiff, suffered concussion and remembers nothing of the accident, nothing, in fact, after passing Dr. Saunders’ residence, Eltham. about a mile from the scene of the impact. Unfprtunatley, Felix Lehrke, the rider of the other cycle, was fatally injured and 1 Paul Lehrke, the owner of the cycle, becomes the defendant by virtue of the Third Party Risk Act. I base my case solely on the damages to the cycle to be produced in court.”

A plan of tlie locality and a photograph of the two cycles on the roadway were placed before the court and the damaged machine referred to by Mr. Cliryistal was produced as an exhibit. Following the presentation of lengthy evidence including that of a doctor who explained the injuries received! by Anderson, Mr. O’Dea submitted there was no case to go to the jury. He maintained that the main evidence called 1 by the plaintiff -established his own negligence. Even two out of the three experts admitted the accident occurred in the middle of the road. The regulations provided every driver ghoul J keep his vehicle to the left of the centre line of the middle of the road. The judge said it did not mean that a motorist was ipisi facto, negligent, if lie were on the wrong side. It had been pointed out more than once, sometimes bv himself, that it might be the best thing to do under certain conditions in order to avoid! an accident. Counsel maintained that there was not even a scintilla of evidence against Lehrke. Tt was plain the accident was entirely due to Anderson’s own negligence. His Honour decided to let the case go its full course. The’ jury found for the plaintiff. The special damages were assessed at £2OB and the general damages at £600!

Upon Mr. Ohrystal moving that judgment should he entered in accordance with the jury’s verdict Air. O’Dea said he felt lie ought to move for judgment for the defendant, or, at any rate, for a new trial.

His Honour entered judgment for the plaintiff for £BOB, with costs according to scale, witnesses’ expenses, and disbursements to be fixed by the registrar. Leave, however, was granted to defendant to move to set aside the judgment or move for a new trial.