DAMAGES FOR CYCLIST

Hawera Star, Volume LIV, 14 June 1935, Page 8

DAMAGES FOR CYCLIST

Eltham Farm Labourer Awarded Total of £793 i COLLISION ON OPUNAKE ROAD SUPREME COURT ACTION Damages totalling £793 17s 4d were awarded David Cocker, farm labourer, of Eltham, in the Supreme Court- at 1 New Plymouth yesterday. Cocker claimed from Noel Hatcher, farm labourer. Eltham. W. F. Carey, farmer, and .J. Malone, farmer, River-; lea, £IOOO general damages and £144 2s 6d special damages for injuries received in a motor collision on the Eltham-Opunakc Road on July 29, 1934. The collision was between Cocker’s motor-cycle, proceeding along the main road, and a car driven out of Preston Street by Hatcher. Counsel agreed in chambers that judgment should not be entered against Carey. The jury assessed special damages at £143 17s 40, including £4O 10s for loss of wages, and general damages at £OSO. Judgment was entered'against Hatcher and Malono jointly for £7Ol 10s, and against Hatcher separately for £29 Is- 4d. Mr L. A. Taylor appeared for plaintiff and defendant was represented by Mr M. J. Burns. When the case commenced Mr Taylor explained that Hatcher was being sued as the driver of the car, Carey and Malone being named under the Motor Vehicles Third Party Risks Act. The ear was owned by Malone, of whom Hatcher was deemed to be the agent, while Carey was Hatcher’s employer and was therefore alleged to be responsible for damage to Cocker’s body, though not his property.

It was submitted that Hatcher was negligent by his non-observance of the motor vehicle regulations, said Mr Taylor. In the accident Cocker was flung against the car door, his jaw and cheekbone being broken. He had to have all his teeth out, he suffered concussion for days, suffered a cut requiring 19 stitches and was afflicted with a constantly weeping eye. In addition the permanent injury to the hand made him an uninsurable person for farm risks. He was fortunate in that he was working for his father, who was now able to select for him suitable work. Previously he was paid 30s a week and keep and his value was now assessed at 15s a week.

EVIDENCE OF DROVER

When the hearing was resumed yesterday morning Joshua Barraclough Eltham, drover, said he saw Cocker ride past his place on the morning of the accident, and said his speed was not 20 miles an hour. From his stable door he saw that the car and cycle had collided and the car was swinging the bike round. He heard no horn sounded. The distance from the point at which he first saw Cocker to the point of the collision was four chains and plaintiff took as iong to cover that as witness did to trot just over two chains to liis stable. Cocker was on his correct ,side of the road. Thelma Ricketts, who Was the pil-lion-rider on the motor cycle, said the speed of the machine was slow on approaching Preston Street.

The plaintiff in evidence said he was at the time of the accident 23 years of age and was employed by his father as a farm worker. He had never done any other class of work. On the day of the accident he considered he would be travelling at about 15 miles an hour. He heard' no horn sounded as he approached' Preston Street. Hatcher’s car came out of Preston 1 Street, cutting the corner, and then ; swung out. Witness’ shut off his machine and applied the brakes, but was not able to avoid the collision. If he had gone in front of the car he would have been run down and he could not go behind it because of loose metal on the road at the corner. He could not remember anything after striking the car until he recovered consciousness. He was not able for two or three days to remember anything of what happened. The witness then gave details of the injuries he received. Arthur E. Lethbridge, of Eltliam, borough inspector, said he painted on the road marks showing the position of the car as agreed upon between Hatcher and Constable Townsend. He confirmed the previous evidence as to the bitumen being wet at the time. To Mr Burns-: One of the ear wheel marks showed a small sideways skid. There was time between the accident and when he saw the place for a shower of rain to have affected the marks. John Maxwell Clarke, of New Plymouth, surgeon, gave particulars of his examinations of the plaintiff. He stated that the. condition of his wrist had improved in Slay last, but there would always be a weakness there, and the probabilities were against his ever being able to do heavy farm w'ork again. WAS LEFT-HANDED BOY John Cocker, of RawhitirOa, farmer, father of the plaintiff, iigexplaining the kind of work lie had been able to do > since the accident, said that prior to that he was a left-handed boy, but had since had 1 to learn the better use of| his right. He was getting now approxi-1 mutely 15s a week and his keep, but witness doubted if he could get that’ from an outside employer. ) Frederick J. Taylor, Eltham, cycle shop manager, gave evidence of selling the motor cycle to plaintiff, and also repairing it. For the defence Mr Burns said it was a denial of the allegations of negligen.ee and a submission that the collision was

the result of the plaintiff’s own negligence in approaching the corner at an excessive speed and in not keeping a proper look-out. Counsel- said he had I to admit that his client had not turned the corner in the manner required by the motor regulations, but he had not cut the corner as alleged by the plaintiff. He saw the motor cycle a considerable distance away, but believed he haa ample time to make his turn on to the main. road. When he realised there was a possibility of a collision he pulled further over to the left side, but the cyclist came on at an excessive speed and he was not looking where he was going, but had turned to look down North Street on the opposite side of the main road. The motor car came up Preston Street at about 15 miles an hour, and slackened speed at the corner. The cycle came on along the centre of the roadway and caused a very severe impact. Frank Muggeridgc, Eltham, county engineer, deposed to the plan of the locality. “SPEEDING INDICATED’’ Walter J. Claringbold, Hawera, motor mechanic, said liis examination of the cycle and the damage done suggested the impact was severe, and there must have been some speeding. The speed of the cycle must have been at least 25 miles an hour to have received such damage in crashing into a stationary object. DEFENDANT’S STORY The defendant, Hatcher, then gave evidence, in the course of which he said he kept a little to the left of the mark of the line of traffic coming out of Preston Street and going to the west, or a little more to the centre of the road than traffic usually kept. When- he saw r the motor cycle it was ion the centre of the road and was travelling fast. The rider showed no signs of slackening liis speed and was looking to his right-hand side. Witness sounded his horn as he came to the corner, bilt did not sound it again when he saw the cycle coming straight at him. The cycle did not slacken speed or swerve and the rider continued looking to his right. When the impact occurred the front wheels of his car were just on- the edge of the bitumen on the south side of the main road. He judged the cyclist’s speed to be about 35 miles an hour. At the time of the collision the bitumen was dry, but there was a shower of rain a little while after. : Summing up, His Honour agreed with Mr Burns that the jury must not be influenced by any sympathy for plaintiff and must decide the case with their heads and not with their hearts. Thei two main questions were if Hatcher cut the corner and if Cocker was speeding and not keeping a proper look-out. Either or both possibilities might be true. The general damages claimed 1 were very large and His Honour warned the jury not to act rashly. If damages were to be awarded counsel had agreed that special damages, excluding loss of wages, should be £lO3 7s 4d.