INJURY TO HORSEMAN.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIV, Issue 19712, 11 August 1927, Page 11

INJURY TO HORSEMAN.

BUS PROPRIETORS SUED. JURY AWARDS £490 DAMAGES. i MOTOR ON ITS WRONG SIDE. An accident on the road between Puni and Paerata on the evening of December 22, 1926, when a motor-bus collided with horse-rider, had a sequel in the Supreme Court yesterday, vhen Joseph James Hoe, farmer, Puni (Mr. Finlay), claimed £IOO4 damages from W. J. Wheeler and Sons, bus proprietors, Green Lane (Mr. Northcroffc). Plaintiff said he was riding to Paerata from Puni early in the evening of December 22. On approaching a bend in the road, where there was a bank on his correct side, he saw the lights of the bus approaching. He drew further over to his correct side, but the bus crossed the road as it turned the bend and crushed him and the horse against the bank. After the accident he spoke to the driver of the bus, who said he had not seen anyone on the bend. The horse had a leg broken and had to be destroyed. Since that date plaintiff had been unable to work. He had had to employ a man to work his farm, and hnd been put to heavy medical expenses. Dr. A. T. Begg said he examined plaintiff on December 22, when he treated him for severe shock. He knew plaintiff was suf. feeing from trouble with his back and after watching his progress for a month sent him to Auckland for X-rav treatment.. It was then found he. had sustained a fracture at the base of the spine. Archibald John Manson, driver of the bus, said that in rounding the bend he left sufficient room for a vehicle to pass him on its correct side of the road. The hearing of evidence occupied almost the whole day. Numerous witnesses were called, including passengers who were in the bus at the time. In summing up, Mr Justice Herdman said it was conceded the driver of the bus drew over to his wrong side of the road in turning the corner. The jury was entitled to assume that was so, and it remained for it to decide whether that action constituted negligence. Plaintiff was entitled to assume the vehicle whose lights he saw approaching would remain on its correct side of the road. There was no suggestion by the defence that it was an accident pure and simple. Mr. Northcroft said a substantial part of the defence was that the horse reared with fright and that the accident was unavoidable. His Honor: You have not pleaded that. Jam glad you reminded me of it. It has been laid down by Mr. Justice Chapmau, that, when a person is driving on the wrong side of a road and an accident occurs the onus of proving that the act | of driving on the wrong side was not rej sponsible for the accident rests with the J defence. i In conclusion, His Honor said he did j not consider the case was one for the : awarding of heavy damages. The jury ! had no right to punish the defendant com- | pany, and was bound to award reasonable compensation only. After a short retirement the jury awarded plaintiff damages totalling £490.