CLAIM FOR DAMAGES

Manawatu Standard, Volume L, Issue 141, 14 May 1930, Page 7

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES

SEQUEL TO COLLISION. ACCIDENT AT KIMBOLTON. JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF. "This is one of those unfortunate cases in which it is a matter of proving who is to blame,” said Mr H Cooper in the Palmerston North Supreme Court, this morning, when outlining the case of Alexander Thompson, labourer, of Kimbolton, who proceeded against George Richard Robinson, laboiirer, of Stanway (Mr J. Graham, Fending) lor the recovery of damages as a result of a collision between two motor-cycles on Cunningham’s Road, near Kimbolton, on November 29. His Honour the Chief Justice, Sir Michael Myers, presided. In the statement of claim plaintiff alleged that the collision had been entirely due to the negligence of defendant, who, it was alleged, was riding his motor-cycle at an excessive speed on the wrong side of the road. As a result of the collision plaintiff’s machine was seriously damaged and plaintifF received severe injuries, having his right arm and leg fractured, necessitating confinement in hospital for 90 days. Plaintiff claimed special damages amounting to £146 7s 9d and general damages £3OO. The defence was a complete denial of the allegations of negligence and that the collision was in any way due to any negligence on defendant’s part. However, should it be proved that defendant was negligent in any of the particulars alleged in the statement of claim, it was contended that plaintiff was contributory negligent in that he was allegedly riding his motor-cycle at an excessive speed and was on the wrong side of the road, and was not keeping a proper look-out. In a counter-claim defendant pointed out that his motor-cycle was seriously damaged by the collision and that he sustained a fractured skull and broken knee cap, which necessitated his absence from work for twenty weeks, and left him permanent facial disfigurement. Special damages totalling £lO5 10s 9d and general damages totalling £350 were claimed. THE EVIDENCE. John Miller, medical practitioner, gave evidence of the nature and effect of the injuries sustained by the two men, whom ho attended after the accident. Plaintiff stated in evidence that the collision took place ato a ■ bend in the road, and at 10 o’clock in the morning. His speed was 15 miles an hour and he was on his correct side of the road. Shortly prior to the collision he had been travelling at 20 miles an hour. When witness first saw defendant the latter was about 12 yards off and was on the wrong side of the road. Had defendant been on the correct side of the road he would have had a clear view of 30 yards. Neither swerved to avoid the accident. Witness was unable to form any indication of defendant’s speed. Witness denied, when cross-examin-ed by Mr Graham, that he had admitted to defendant’s parents that both cyclists had been to blame. When in hospital witness intimated to defendant his intention to take action for damages. No mention of a counterclaim had then been made. , . His’ -Honour' observed to'Mr Graham that such accidents, unfortunately not uncommon, happened on a road where there was plenty of room, and where there was no traffic.' Logically, they should not occur but when they did they were due to the negligence of one or other of the parties. Mr Graham: They might both be negligent. His Honour: That cannot be so as each alleges that the other was on-the wrong side of the road. Richard Charles Powell, farmer, of Bunnythorpe, who arrived on the scene shortly after the accident, said ho found the cycles side by side. Plaintiff was lying on a bank and defendant was standing against the bank further down the road. Both were on the left side going to Feilding. The position of the machines seemed to indicate that they had stayed in that position after the accident and the injured riders were unable to move them. „ _ Constable Ruddell, of Feilding, said he found the cycles locked together on the right hand side of the road on which defendant was travelling. He had mislaid the record ot measurements that he had taken at the time, and was able to give approximate distances. The skid marks appeared to start about six feet from the bank and finished about three feet from the bank, indicating that the machines had skidded aftei the collision. One would not expect >to find such marks unless the coming from Feilding had cut til corner. The corner was not a dangerous one. , . Mr Graham produced a plan and asked witness whether, as a niotorcyclist, he would follow the easiest course. . „ • His Honour: That is the way accidents usually happen, by _ motorists taking the easiest course instead ot the safest course. f Allan Rink, farm labourer, of Makino, who arrived on horseback shortly after the collision, gave particulars of the relative positions of the machines. Plaintiff s cycle facing towards Cheltenham n the bank. . . Mr Graham (after cross-examining witness): Ido not think this witness understands what he is talking aa ?. ul ; His Honour (to Mr Cooper): is the disadvantage of calling three witnesses when two would do. This closed plaintiff's case. DEFENDANT’S CASE. Defendant, in the course of his evidence. stated that he was riding from the direction of Feilding when the accident occurred. When he approached the hill which preceded the scene ot the accident, he kept on his correct (tide. His first indication of the approach of plaintiff was when the flak on the latter’s machine appeared over the hill. Witness was then well on the left hand side of the wheel track. He remembered nothing after the collision Prior to the accident he was emnlov'ed at 30s a week and found. His speed was between 15 and 20 miles an Robinson, mother of defendant, said she had seen plaintiff several tunes while he was in hospital. On one oche had stated that both were f o blame and that neither had been BV wSm George Robinson husband Alhi nrevious witness, said he had bLI a conversation with plaintiff. ■ wn° oonmed very concerned about deSlant’s condition and had stated »o£>in.er. WA Nnrth gave particulars of the S. irKdVn" He” “as Sf'anTl *B2 Myelin'S

to travel in the middle of the road when approaching the top of the hill. The corner was by no means dangermis- in fact, it was a very easy one The’ average rider going up the lull from the Waituna side would be inclined to keep out from the bank as the corner appeared to be sharp from thrt side From the nature of the damage it would be practically impossible for Thompson to he riding close to ßenlving nl to Mr Cooper, witness admitted that it was impossible to deduce what part of the road in which the accident had occurred from an inspection of the damage sustained by the machines. If the motor-cyclists did not see each other they were not keeper a look-out. If the riders were in the centre of the road the visibility was good. HIS HONOUR’S DECISION. Giving his decision, His Honour said the case was one which nowadays appeared to be a frequent occurrence. The road was quite wide; there was no other traffic; it was broad daylight; every condition was favourable; yet an accident happened. The corner was not dangerous, and there must have been negligence on the part of both or of either. He was satisfied that the negligence was the defendant s. The plaintiff’s story was well supported bv reliable witnesses. His Honour was inclined to think that the statement made by plaintiff to defendants parents was correct, and it was easy to understand in the circumstances However, no value was placed on this evideJudgment was given for plaintiff for P 193 7s 9d special damages, and £l5O general damages, with costs against defendant. -