BOY INJURED BY MOTOR

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 19292, 3 April 1926, Page 12

BOY INJURED BY MOTOR

QUESTION OF NEGLIGENCE. SUM OF £IOO AWARDED. Reserved judgment was given by Mr. J. W. Poynton, S.M., in'tho Magistrate's Court on Thursday, in an action in which £2OO "general damages was claimed from Ambury's, Ltd., on behalf of Kevin Arthur Clark, aged nine, who was knocked down on August 12, 1925, at the Monument, Royal Oak, by a motor-lorry, driven by an employee of the company. The driver, said the magistrate, "was driving a motor-lorry from Manukau Road into Symonds Street, Royal Oak. In doing this, he had to pass either to the right or the left of the monument, a memorial erected nearly in the centre of ti'.e intersection of six different streets .spreading star-liko from the site of the monument. Evidence was given that it, was customary for drivers of vehicles to take the route that defendant took. On August 12 a little boy ran across Symonds Street to join a chum. He passed the monument just as the lorry did, was struck and was severely injured. The driver was not driving fast. The question was, was there negligence? It was clear that Hie driver did not keep on his left-hand side, Mr. Poynton continued. He was convicted for notdoing so in this very case. Apa't from the fact that the driver did not keep to the left, it appeared that he bad drivn too close to the monument. There was plenty of room to pass further from it. But it might be said that he would be breaking the by-law if he passed so much to the right of the centre of the road. He had, however, already broken the bylaw and after doinc so had injured tho lad. 'Hie magistrate snid that lie thought there was negligence in keeping too close to the monument. He also thought that the driver did not stop quickly enough. He was going very slowly and with greater promptness should have avoided the accident. Judgment was given for plaintiff' for £IOO with costs.