Litigants are, Motorist and Motor-cyclist

Manawatu Times, Volume 60, Issue 84, 10 April 1935, Page 4

Litigants are, Motorist and Motor-cyclist

CASE HEARD BEFORE MAGISTRATE

Yesterday the Palmerston North Magistrate's Court with Mr J. L. Stout, 1 S.M., on the bench, was occupied -with hearing a claim and counter-claim between Cecil Davies Graham, insurance' agent, and li. Rowland, radio expert. Tho caso was the result of a collision on October 14 last, when plaintiff, motoring down Cuba, street towards Burns avenue, suffered a collision with defendant who, on a motor-cycle, proceeded out of Lyndhurst street from the railway side. Plaintiff claimed that Rowland's negligence caused the accident, that he failed to keep a proper look-out, drove his motor-cycle at an excessive speed, failed to give sufficient warning of his approach, failed to give way to traffic approaching from his right. Damages claimed totalled £25 7s Sd, comprising £lO 7s 8d repairs to his vehicle, £lO depreciation, and £5 for the loss of use of his car.

Defendant in a counter-claim alleged negligence against Graham, from whom he claimed £l2 ISs (id for medical and hospital expenses (being incapacitated for six weeks); 9s for repairs to his motor-cycle, £2l for six weeks’ loss of work, and £lO general damages. Plaintiff was represented by Mr M. 11. Oram, and defendant by Mr H. R. Cooper. Plaintiff, in evidence, said ho was driving down Cuba street at about 20 miles per hour, and though near the crown of the road lie kept to the left. He had reached the intersection before sighting defendant's vehicle- in Lyndhurst street. The motor-cyclist was looking to the left, apparently intending to proceed towards Burns avenue (in the same direction as witness). Ho moved over to the right to give the other more room but, instead of making the anticipated turn, defendant came straight ahead, an impact resulting. When he realised a collision was inevitable, lit had applied the brakes. After pulling up 2.1 feet from the point of impact, his car was near the footpath kerb with the cycle lying alongside. Defendant lay in the middle of Cuba street, having fallen off his cycle when the impact occurred. AVitness gave evidence as to the costs involved in repairs and depreciation. His business had suffered through loss of the ear for a fortnight. Defendant at first gave a verbal undertaking to pay garage expenses, but when approached again, declined to meet these costs. Witness’ opinion was

that if defendant had kept a proper lookout lie could have avoided the collision. \\ itness denied to Mr Cooper that defendant, the interview, had said lie would pay half the expenses only. Rowland was to defray the cost of repairs from the expected sale of his motor-cycle. Graham admitted being involved in two previous collisions with the same car. Mr Cooper conducted a lengthy crossexamination as to the basis cf the claim for depreciation on the car and for loss resulting from deprivation of its use. Constable’s Evidence. Constable Arnold, who was called to the scene of the collision, said the point of impact was nine feet over the centre of the intersection. The motorist was travelling on his left-hand side side. After the impact, as indicated by surface markings, the car travelled 21 feet at an angle, and came to rest with the front cycle wheel under the left-hand front car-wheel. Rowland, in a statement, said that on the afternoon of the collision he had been experimenting in Main street with some transmitting apparatus, and on proceeding up Lyndhurst street his attention was claimed to the left for a moment. Afterwards he remembered nothing until he woke up in hospital. Thomas Boyle, a resident of Burns avenue, whoso front window gave a clear view of Cuba street and of the collision, gave a corroborative story. While not sure of his estimate, he thought the motor-cycle approached at 30 or 35 miles per hour. To Mr Cooper, witness admitted that both vehicles should have had an opportunity to see the other and avoid an impact. He did not know why they had not done so. No evidence was called for the defence. The Magistrate held that, ■ while while Graham’s driving was not exemplary, there was not sufficient evidence of contributory negligence to prevent plaintiff recovering.' The claim of £lO 7s Sd for damages would be allowed, but £5 would be adequate compensation for loss of the use of car and depreciation. Judgment was. for plaintiff for £ls 7s Sd, and court costs £2 4s; solicitors’ expenses £3 2s; on counter-claim, £1 11s Gd; witness’ expenses 19s 6d.