SUPREME COURT

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLV, Issue 138, 15 May 1925, Page 5

SUPREME COURT

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES,

SEQUEL TO COLLISION. The hearing was continued at the Supremo Court this morning, before His Honour Justiea Reed and a jury of twelve, of the case in which Alfred Ernest Ellery, farmer, of Bulls, is claiming £SOO general and £75 IBs lOd special damages, through a motor collision, from Francis Chalmers Brookie, farmer, of Parowanui. Tho statement of claim alleges that plaintiff, while cycling on his correct side of the noad near Bulls on September 21, 1924, was knocked down by a motor car owned and driven by defendant, who, it is further alleged, was driving negligently and at an excessive speed. The defence is a denial of the plaintiff’s allegations, the defendant saying that, if plaintiff was thrown to tho road, it was the result of his own negligent and unskilful management of the bicyole. The first witness called by Mr Stanford this morning was defendant, wluo gave evidence that he had set out in his car on the Sunday morning in question in tho direction of Bulls, intending to goon to Feilding. Plaintiff had been seen cycling ahead on the right-hand aide at the road. Defendant was in tho middle of the roadand was travelling at about 20 miles per hour. On hearing the car, plaintiff looked round and deviated his track to the middle of the road. Defendant, to pass on the correct side, was forced to drive on the gruss on tho right-hand side. When the machines were level, plaintiff’s cycle skidded and threw him on to the car, which was pulled up within ten yards. If plaintiff’s machine had not wobbled, defendant would have had plenty of room to pass. Plaintiff was taken to his home by witness, who then proceeded on to Feilding. Defendant did not remember plaintiff having said to him after the accident that he had been travelling too fast. Where the acoidont occurred there was a quantity of loose gravel on the road and a number of potholes. Cross-examined by Mr Cooper, witness stated that, when plaintiff had seen thef car, the cycle was about three feet from the grass on the wrong side. He then cycled over almost to the centre of the road, whore the collision occurred. Witness had not sounded his horn, not thinking it necessary as plaintiff had heard the car.

In reply to His Honour, witness stated that he was endeavouring to pass plaintiff at about 25 miles an hour and with a clearance of t\yo feet, which he considered reasonable.

Vera Florence Brookie, daughter of defendant, who was a passenger in the ear at tlie time of the accident, gave corroborative evidence. This closed the ease for defendant and Mr Stanford addressed tho jury. In doing so, counsel submitted that plaintiff had not been on his correct side of the road, und that his machine had skidded, throwing him against the car. Mr” Cooper, in hi 3 address, stated that, from the evidence, it was apparent that defendant had shown negligence, It had been shown that the roud was 26 feet wide, and, even if plaintiff had been in the centre, which was disputed, there was still plenty of room for defendant to pass. Summing up, His Honour said that it was extraordinary that accidents of this nature should occur on good roads in broad daylight. Defendant, pn his own udmission, had said that ho had allowed plaintiff only two feet when passing, and it was a matter for the jury to consider whether this distance was sufficient. It was quite possible that a highly-strung man might fall off a bicycle if a car travelling at 25 miles an hour passed two feet away. If the jury found _for plaintiff, he would have to be awarded at least the whole of the special damages. Tho jury retired at 12.10 o’clock and returned half-an-hour later with a verdict for plaintiff for a total amount of £lls. Judgment was accordingly given for plaintiff, with costs on the lower scale.