NEGLIGENCE OR NUISANCE?

Horowhenua Chronicle, 25 November 1929, Page 5

NEGLIGENCE OR NUISANCE?

CLAIM FOR INJURY CAUSED BY COLLISION WITH LORRY. ..VEHICLE AND BICYCLE BOTH , ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN UNLIGHTED. (By Telegraph— Press Association.) WELLINGTON, This Day. A claim is proceeding in the Supreme Court in which £552 15s is sought from Mary Wilton, milk vendor, of Lower Hutt, by the guardian of Louis Shardlow, an apprentice, who collided with an unlighted lorry on the night of December 4, 1928, while riding a bicycle, and had his skull fractured. According to Dr. Lynch, in giving evidence, a piece of bone wag removed soon after the injured lad’s admission to the hospital. It was impossible to say what the effect of the accident would be. •

In denying negligence, the defence says that the lorry was unlightcd owing to a failure in the lighting and ignition system. Contributory negligence is alleged in the pace at which the lad was riding, in not keeping a proper look-out, and in having no light on his bicycle. The defence also states that the lorry was drawn aside and was standing partially on the grass. During the proceedings, His Honour the Chief Justice (Hon. M. Myers) remarked that it seemed to him that the true ground of action was not negligence, but nuisance. '