DAMAGES GIVEN

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXX, Issue 21639, 3 November 1933, Page 12

DAMAGES GIVEN

SEQUEL TO COLLISION £635 PGR MOTOR-CYCLIST BREACH OF OFF-SIDE RULE A claim for damages totalling £7BO lis arising out of « collision between a motor-car and motor-cycle at the intersection of King's.' Drive and the road leading to the Devonport vehicular ferry wharf on January 30 was heard before Mr. Justice Smith and a jury at the Supreme Court yesterday. Plaintiff was Reginald A. Gotohed, of Ponsonby, electrician (Mr. Holrnden*, and defendant was Charles Walters, of Auckland, company , manager (Mr. Richmond). Plaintiff's case was that the a cedent occurred on-a race day, when a large number of motor-cars were parked along the kerb of King's Drive and the ferry entrance, ret erred to as Ferry Road, waiting to be taken on board the ferry boat. Plaintiff was riding his motor-cycle iron the city in the direction of Parncdl. his son travelling with him tf piliion rider. He was travelling at between 15 and 30 ' rules an hour, and when he approached the intersection he saw defendant's car coining out of Ferry Road at a slow pace, and that this was an invitation to him to go on. y - Injuries to Plaintiff He did so, .and defendant's car increased its speed and struck the motorcycle at the rear, throwing both riders off and damaging the cycle. Plaintiff /, suffered a broken collarbone, a broken shoulder blade and a broken ankle. He was seriously handicapped in bis work, as he could n6t use bis left arm freely, so that he could not do any electrical work above the level of his ryes. It was claimed that the accident was due to the negligence of defendant, particularly by his breach of the off-side rule. Plaintiff's son was injured and was paid £'34 2s as the result of a claim which he made. Plaintiff was claiming £2SO lis as special damages and £-500 general damages. It was stated by the defence that 'the view of a driver coming out of Ferry Road was obscured by the closely parked cars at the side of the road. Plaintiff's case rested on a technical breach of the rule, but there could not be a breach of the rule until the driver reached a point where he had visibility. There was therefore no negligence on the part of defendant, whose car -was only 6ft. past the northern end of the concrete paving of King's Drive when he saw plaintiff and applied his brakes, moving forward only -another 6ft. before coming to a standstill. It was clear, said counsel, that plain- " tiff broke a rule at least as important as the off-side rule. This rule said that when approaching an intersection where the visibility was less than 90ft. a vehicle must not exceed 15 miles an hour. In this case there was no visibilitv for the purposes of the rale. Plaintiff needed to swerve outwards * only a foot to avoid the accident, but he struck the car when it was at a standstill or at the point of stopping. A Question of Speed Counsel for defendant said that plaintiff must have been travelling at a very much greater speed, than he had admitted, but even if he were travelling at only 20 miles an hour he had ample opportunity to avoid the accident from the time lie "observed the car. Defendant had failed to observe the right-hand rule and that undoubtedly was the cause of the collision, said Mr. Holmden. Defendant owed it to plain- ■> tiff to give way and he did not do so. In summing up, His Honor said there rould not be any doubt in. these circumstances that the rightr-Tiand rule applied and that was under a duty to observe it. Jt. was for .the jury to say whetherdefendant did observe it. ' The issues put to the jury were: — TVas defendant negligent, and, if so, was plaintiff negligent. If both were negligent, then <1) whose negligence was the real cause of the collision; (2) were they equally negligent in causing the collision. The jurv returned a verdict that defendant was negligent, with no negligence against plaintiff. The jury awarded plaintiff, damages totalling £635 19s 3d, of which Special damages accounted for £167 19s 3d and general damages to £468.