£3269 SOUGHT

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22346, 18 February 1936, Page 14

£3269 SOUGHT

SEQUEL TO COLLISION

MOTOR-CYCLIST'S INJURIES ALLEGATIONS OF NEGLIGENCE A claim for £3269, arising out of injuries suffered by a motor-cyclist in a coflision on Manukau Road, Newmarket, on tlie evening of June 18, 1934,* was heard in the Supreme Court yesterday before Mr. Justice Blair and a jury. Plaintiff was Henry Horace Cadogan, of Auckland, sales manager (Mr. Haigh), and defendants -were Schofield and Company, Limited, garage proprietors (Mr. Goldstine), and Frederick Plows, of Whitianga, carrier (Mr. North). Plaintiff's cycle crashed into the back of Plows' lorry, which was being towed by one of the defendant company's vehicles, although at tho time of the impact both these vehicles were stationary. Plaintiff suffered a fracture of his spino and other serious injuries. He alleged negligence on the part of defendants, contending that Plows' vehicle had no tail-light, and claimed £2500 as general damages and £769 as special damages. The defence was a complete denial of negligence and an allegation of negligence on the part of plaintiff. Evidence of Plaintiff Plaintiff said that on the evening of the accident there was a strong wind and heavy rain. After crossing the railway bridge at Newmarket on his way to the city, he proceeded about 40ft. and the light of his cycle picked up a dark object about 50ft. or 60ft. away. He swerved to the right and applied his brakes. The object appeared to be a truck with rather a heavy load on it. He then crashed into it. Ho saw no light on the truck, either before or after the accident. Dr. Maurice Axford, honorary orthopoedic surgeon to the Auckland Hospital, said plaintiff was .discharged from hospital on May 25, 1935. Since then he had had continuous treatment as an out-patient. Witness considered that plaintiff's injuries had definitely shortened his normal expectation of life which, in witness' opinion, could not be more than 15 years. Plaintiff's spine had soundly united. The disabilities remaining included paralysis of the right leg and plaintiff would never be an active man again. Dr. Arthur Eisdell Moore gave corroborative evidence regarding plaintiff's expectation of life. Plaintiff Gross-examined Cross-examined by Mr. Goldstine plaintiff said he was keeping a very sharp look out. He was not crouching over the handlebars sheltering from the rain. His speed was from 15 to 20 miles an hour and he was travelling about three or four feet f/om the kerb. The brakes of his cycle were in perfect order and so was the headlight. He did not see any tail-light on the rear vehicle. He noticed before and afterward that there was no tail-light burning. He knew that the tail-light was in two pieces after the collision. Whether it was damaged by his cycle he could not say.

To His Honor plaintiff said the limit of his visibility was from 50 to 60ft. Plaintiff said he did not apply his brakes until he found he could not swerve any __ further to miss the lorry. This was done when he was 10 or 12ft. away from the vehicle. This concluded plaintiff's case and Mr. North, on behalf of both defendants, formally applied for a non-suit. His Honor said he would reserve the right. Evidence fo? Defence

John William Martin said he was in charge of Plows' lorry, which broke down near the Newmarket junqtion. He went to the back and climbed underneath. All lights were burning, including the tail-light. He telephoned for a tow waggon from Schofield's and one arrived and took his lorry in tow. They stopped to allow the driver of the tow waggon to report at Schofield's. His vehicle was close to the kerb and a few paces from a street light. Witness said he saw a motor-cyclist approaching from Newmarket at about 30 miles an hour. He was crouched over his machine and was about 100 ft. away from the lorry. He did not appear to be swerving to avoid the lorry. It was all over in a flash. Witness rushed to the back and found the rider and machine under the lorry. He pulled the rider out and the latter said, " What have I hit?" Witness told him. After the accident the tail-light of witness' vehicle was found to be broken. It appeared to have been struck. The electrical circuit of the tail-light was tested and found to bo "alive." It made quite a strong spark. The hearing was adjourned until today.