SEQUEL TO COLLISION.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LVIII, Issue 17662, 24 December 1920, Page 8

SEQUEL TO COLLISION.

MOTOR-CAR AND CYCLE. j CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FAILS. LAND AND SEA LAW. The reserved judgment by the Chief Justice in the case in which William Hobbs, of Hamilton, dentist (Mr. F. A. Swarbrick), claimed from A. E. Williams, of Hamilton, land agent (Mr. J. H. Luxford), the sum of £366 damages for injuries sustained by being knocked off a bicycle by defendant's motor-car, was delivered yesterday. The hearing of the action took place in Hamilton. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant proceeded along Victoria Street, Hamilton, on his wrong side, and suddenly cut the corner into Alma Street, thereby knocking down the plaintiff, who was proceeding along Victoria Street on his correct side, in the opposite direction. The defendant alleged that the accident occurred by leason of the plaintiff's own negligence. The Chief Justice after setting out the facts, said that the main questions fox determination were:—(l) Was the defendant guilty of negligence that led to the accident? (2) Was the plaintiff also guilty of negligence and but for such negligence would the accident have happened? The two questions must be considered in the form in which he had put them. The more fact that one or other_ or both, of the parties may have been guilty of negligence would not be of importance, unless it was effective in causing the accident. His Honour found that the plaintiff was guilty of negligence, firstly in failing to maintain a sufficiently careful outlook and riding along with his head down, and secondly, in wavering in his course immediately before the accident. He also found that the defendant was wrong in travelling too closely to the plaintiff s side of the xoad. " I have mentioned on previous occasions what I am now about to repeat here," proceeded His Honour. "To my mind the Admiralty law relating to collisions at sea is decidedly more just and effective than the common law relating to vehicles on land. Shortly it is this. If the accident is caused through the negligence of both parties the damage is equally apportioned. One learned author states that this principle is probably a nearer approximation to ideal justice, than the rule of the common law. But any alteration of the law as it now stands must be introduced by the Legislature." Judgment was entered for defendant. In view of the injuries sustained by the plaintiif and the fact that the defendant might have exercised more care, the Court exercised its discretion by awarding the defendant no costs.