DAMAGES CLAIMED

Manawatu Standard, Volume LI, Issue 204, 30 July 1931, Page 8

DAMAGES CLAIMED

SUPREME COURT ACTION. CASE FROM FEILDING. Before His Honour Mr Justice Reed and a jury of twelve tlie hearing commenced in the Supreme Court to-day ot a claim for £541 5s 6d by Stuart v\ illiam Thurston, through his guardian ad litem, Francis Stuart Thurston (Mr Rellina) against Richard Harper and Kai Wong (Mr Grajiam). The parties were from Feilding, and the action w s the outcome of a collision between a motor cycle and a cycle. STATEMENT OF CLAIM. Plaintiff, in his statement of claim, alleged that the defendant, Kai Wong, was the owner of a motor cycle which , on August 24 was ridden by the defendant, Richard Harper, with the authority of the owner. It was alleged that early in the afternoon of August 24, while plaintiff was riding a bicycle along the Awahuri Road close to rending. the defendant, Richard Harper, collided with him and knocked him oit. Plaintiff contended that the collision was due solely to the negligent and incompetent manner in which Richard Harper rode and controlled the motor cycle, it being alleged that the machine was travelling at an excessive speed, that immediately prior to the collision the motor cycle was ridden on tne wrong side of the road, that the efendant, Richard Harper failed to keep a proper look-out, and that lie did n have proper control of the motor eye e. Plaintiff said he had had his left leg badly broken, had suffered severely from pain and shock, and would have a permanent injury in that lus left teg, as a result of the fracture, was now slightly shorter than Ins right leg. Plaintiff sought to recover £ooo as general damages and £4l 5s od as special damages. STATEMENT OF DEFENCE. Defendants, in their statement of ' defence, denied that the collision was 'Niie in any way whatsoever to any neglicence or incompetence on the part ot Richard Harper, or that he was in any wav' negligent or incompetent in the manlier in which be rode and controlled the motor-cycle. Other allegations / also were denied. Defendants, alleged contributing negligence by plaintiff in " that immediately prior to the collision he was riding his cycle on the wrong side of the road, that he failed to keep a proper look-out and did not have proper control of his cycle, and that at the time of the collision he was . riding his cycle at an excessive speed. It was therefore contended that plaintiff was not entitled to recover any damages from the defendants or either of them. The jury was empanelled as follows: Messrs C Page (foreman), S. Perigo, B. T Hickey, G. Adams, G. Lacey, E. Campbell, W. H. Alltree, W. J Edwards, A» Cooksley, B. Kinzett, C. vV. Denson and F. M. G. Watchorn.EVIDENCE FOR PLAINTIFF. . * George Henry Luff, licensed surveyor, of Feilding, testified to a plan, of the locality where the accident occurred. Stuart William Thurston, the plaintiff, said he was a pupil of the Manchester Street School. He had turned from Giesen Road into Awahuri Road on his cycle on the afternoon of August 24 when lie . met two boys. He rode his cycle on the left side of the road as they walked along the footpath. Just as he left them a dog ran across the road.in.front of him. They heard a motor cycle coming and thought it was an aeroplane. A car passed over an intersection and the motdr cycle then became visible about li chains away on the left side, travelling very fast, as the noise was like that of a 'plane. The machine swerved .towards plaintiff—who was on his left side of the road —to avoid the dog. It came straight for him and struck the left side of his bicycle, the front wheel of which became caught up in the motor cycle, and took plaintiff right across the road to the right-hand side. Cross-examined by Mr Graham, plaintiff said that he pedalled on slowly behind the motor car when it passed. When he first saw the motor cycle, plaintiff had only turned his front wheel to cross Awahuri Road to the footpath of South Street. Monte Kurz and Leslie George Flintoff both gave evidence that they 6aw the collision. Plaintiff’s cycle, they said, was caught by the front wheel, dragged right across the road and, when the motor cycle hit a bump, dropped off, the riders also falling off. Cecil Murphy said that he saw a curved skid mark which had evidently been caused by a wheel being dragged across the road. Norah Thurston, mother of plaintiff, gave evidence concerning the effects of his injury. This concluded plaintiff’s case with the exception of medical evidence to be called this afternoon. Mr Graham at this stage applied for leave to raise a non-suit point later on the grounds of insufficient evidence and made his opening address to the jury, setting out defendants’ side of the case. He suggested that the passing car had obscured the vision which the motor-cyclist had of the boy, who had apparently turned to cross the road to the footpath because he thought the motor cycle would pass first. Counsel suggested that the impact did not take place right on plaintiff’s left-hand side of the road, but it might have been in the middle, though he would call evidence to show that the collision took place on plaintiff’s right-hand side. The Court then adjourned for lunch.