DAMAGES AWARDED.

Manawatu Standard, Volume LV, Issue 158, 4 June 1935, Page 6

DAMAGES AWARDED.

CLAIM BY PEDESTRIAN. FOXTON LINE ACCIDENT. Claiming £lll 10s Cd special and £SO general damages, Frank Mills, of Palmerston North, took action in the Magistrate’s Court at Palmerston North to-day, before Mr J. L. Stout, S.M., against Granville James, a motor-cyclist, in consequence of an accident which occurred on Foxton Line last year. It was alleged that defendant had so negligently, carelessly and unskilfully managed his machine that it collided with plaintiff, who was incapacitated for a long period. Mr A. M. Ongley appeared for plaintiff and Mr T. M. N. Rodgers lor defendant. Evidence was given by Frank Mills, formerly of Dannevirke, and now of Palmerston North, that he had been for two seasons a freezing works employee earning £2 12s (id with overtime, making his average earnings £3 a week for six months. On the night of May 18, 1934, he was walking along Foxton Line towards the town on the left-hand side of the road, accompanied by Miss Greening, when he was struck from behind by a motorcycle ridden by defendant. Plaintiff was in hospital for eleven days, and had been under medical treatment periodically since. He had been unable to do his ordinary work, and still felt the effects of the injury. Cross-examined, plaintiff said he knew the highway was a dangerous one. He could have walked on the loose metal had he wished. He did not hear the motor-cycle approach, but his attention was not closely occupied by anything else. Eileen Greening gave corroborative evidence, stating that she too was knocked unconscious by the collision. She was injured, and her claim for compensation had been settled. She had not heard the motor-cycle and had not seen its light. Charles Herbert Greening stated that after his daughter was injured he interviewed defendant, who said he did not 6ee the couple on the road until he got right up to them. Dr E. C. Barnett gave evidence concerning the medical treatment plaintiff had received. His injury was due to rupture of certain ligaments tying the spinal bones together. He would be incapacitated for some considerable time from doing heavy work. This concluded the case for plaintiff. Defendant testified that he was returning home from his work at Longburn when the accident occurred. He had previously passed the couple when on Ins way out of town. It was a dark night after heavy rain, and the bitumen was very slippery. His machine could be heard at three-quarters of a mile or a mile away. He was dazzled by bright lights, and next saw the couple about five feet in front of him'. He could not swerve because of the slipoery road. The headlight caught plaintiff on the left hip and the handlebar struck Miss Greening. George William Storey said he came on the scene of the accident and saw skid marks ten feet long three feet from the left-hand side of the bitumen. It had been raining, and the visibility was very bad.

Al'f. Kingston, insurance assessor, of Feilding, said he had made tests with defendant’s motor-cycle, which could be heard 500 yards away at 0 p.m. It was difficult to to understand why defendant did not pick up the couple with a light capable of throwing a beam of 100 feet.

• Frederick Barry, a resident of Foxton Line, said he arrived on the scene of the accident after the motor-cycle had overtaken him 150 yards back. He heard it approaching, but did not see it, and got out of the way. Next he heard a young woman scream.

Mr D. S. Wylie, F.R.C.S., gave evidence that he had examined plaintiff on April 16 last. The spinal movements were free and normal, but there was a definite small area of tenderness. Witness could detect no evidence of injury to the spine or its joints, saw no reason why plaintiff should not resume his normal occupation, and saw nothing to indicate future disability. This concluded the evidence. The Magistrate said that when dazzled by lights, defendant should not have been travelling on the wet bitumen at a pace of 25 to 30 miles an hour. With motor traffic passing frequently both ways, it was possible that the approach of his machine might not be heard. Judgment would be for plaintiff for £72 11s special and £2O general damages, with c'osts amounting to £2 4a 6d.