CYCLIST’S CLAIM

Manawatu Standard, Volume LVI, Issue 62, 11 February 1936, Page 9

CYCLIST’S CLAIM

FOXTON LINE ACCIDENT. SUPREME COURT CASE. In the Supreme Court yetfterday before His Honour Mr Justice Blair, a civil action was heard in which Haus Gleerup Peter Mortensen, jeweller, of Palmerston North (Mr J. P. Lines), sought damages totalling £255 7s from Joe Kwong Lee and Coy., fruiterers, of Palmerston North (Mr H. R. Cooper), as the sequel to an accident which occurred on Foxton Line on April 14, 1935.

Plaintiff, in his statement of claim, said that lie was cycling towards Palmerston North when a motor-vehicle, driven by Willie Wong, an employee of defendants, was travelling at the rear of him. It was alleged that the vehicle was so negligently driven that it collided with plaintiff’s cycle, and he suffered a fracture of the left wrist and shock, and was unable to carry on his occupation for five months. Alleging that defendants’ driver had failed to keep a proper look-out, and had been travelling on the wrong side of the road, plaintiff claimed £2OO general and £55 7s special damages. Defendants, in tlieir statements of defence, denied all the allegations except that a collision had occurred. They said that the accident was entirely due to_ plaintiff’s negligence in that (a) he failed to keep as near as possible to the left side of the road; (b) that, well knowing there was a good deal of traffic on the road at that time, he failed to keep a proper look-out for vehicles overtaking him; (c) that, well knowing immediately prior to the collision another vehicle was approaching with brilliant lights sufficient to impede the clear view of the driver of a motorvehicle overtaking him, he failed to take reasonable precautions to avoid being struck. For a further defence, defendants said that if it be proved that their driver was negligent in any respect, then plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence and had the last opportunity of avoiding a collision. For a third defence,- it was said the collision was due to an inevitable accident. Following upon medical evidence given by Dr Ivan Wilson, plaintiff entered the witness box. He said lie was 70 years of age and had been riding a cycle for 35 years. The accident occurred at 6.30 p.m. in a failing light. I here was a rear reflector on plaintiff’s cycle, which was about two feet in on the bitumen on the proper side. The sealed surface extended almost from grass to grass, and was about 30 feet wide. No warning was given plaintiff; the vehicle struck him and he was knocked out. Evidence I> V J. W. Muir, city engineer, who arrived on' the scene shortly afterwards, concluded the case for plaintiff. Giving evidence for the defence, the driver of defendants’ vail, Willie Wong, said lie had two others on the seat with him. It was dark and witness was driving on his correct side of the road. He saw a very bright motor cycle light coming towards him and, when close, it dazzled him. 'Witness was travelling at not more than 25 miles an hour when lie first saw the light, and ho then applied the brakes. His left wheel was on the metal as the motorist passed him. He then observed a cyclist on his right and lie had applied In’s brakes, swinging to the left. When the van stopped the left front wheel was on the grass and the righthand one oil the metal. On alighting from the van lie had observed plaintiff lying on the centre of the road and liis bicycle three feet from tlie- centre of the bitumen. He had asked plaintiff if he was all right and the latter had declined any assistance. The motor cyclist had also returned to offer assistance, but it had been declined by plaintiff. He was certain that he had .not struck plaintiff. To Mr limes, witness stated that ho had held a driver’s license since 1927. The cycle had not been moved prior to the arrival of Mr Muir, but an attempt had been made to move plaintiff. However, the latter had requested to be left alone. Charles Harold Woottan, storeman, of Palmerston North, gave evidence that lie had been a passenger in defendant’s van at tlie time of the accident. Wong had been travelling on his correct side at about 25 to 30 miles per hour when the motor cycle, which carried a very bright light, approached. AA’ong had appreciably slowed down as the motor cvclist drew near. Immediately after the motor cyclist passed a cyclist was observed in the centre of the bitumen and Wong had pulled over hard to his left. The bitumen at the point was 16ft wide; then came 6ft of metal, and the van’s left wheel had halted on the edge of the grass. George Phillip Hunter, motor assessor, of Palmerston North, gave evidence relative to tlie measurements of the roadway at the point of the accident and of the dimensions of the van. Tliis concluded the evidence for the defence and, after hearing counsel, His Honour gave judgment for plaintiff for £IOO general expenses and £27 10s special damages. In reviewing the evidence His Honour commented tlia.t section 15 (1) df tlie motor regulations required a motorist to pull up within half the length of the roadway within the driver’s vision. Negligence had no doubt been established, but it was not a bad ease, being to some extent merely technical.