CLAIM FOR £1131

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22350, 22 February 1936, Page 18

CLAIM FOR £ll3l

NEGLIGENCE ALLEGED COLLISION AT ONEHUNGA \ - j ADDRESSES TO JURY The hearing of a claim for damages totalling £ll3l 10s 2d. as a result of a collision between a motor-ear and a bicycle in April, 1935, which was commenced in the Supreme Court on Thursday before Mr. Justice Blair and a. jury, was resumed yesterday. Plaintiff was Joyce Wilson, dressmaker, of Onehunga, and defendant, Monsignor Jeremiah Cahill, clergyman, of Onehunga. Mr. Johnston appeared for plaintiff and Mr. Goldstine for defendant. Plaiutiff alleged that on April 9, 1935, as she was riding her bicycle along Arthur Street, Onehunga, at the intersection of Albert Street, defendant, through driving his car carelessly and negligently, collided with her. As a result of the collision plaintiff suffered serious bodily injuries, including a I'rac-tured-dislocation of the cervical spine. The claim was for £IOOO general damages and £l3l 10s 2d special damages.

When the case was resumed yesterday, medical evidence was given by Dr. William Cuthbert McCaw, Dr. Keith Stuart MacKay and Dr. Alexander Gregor Grant, concerning plaintiff's injuries.

Defendant's Evidence

In evidence, defendant, Monsignor 'Jeremiah Cahill, said that on the dav of the accident ho left his presbytery and proceeded up Albert Street. On approaching the intersection he glanced to his right but did not notice any traffic. He was crossing the intersection when he saw a cyclist coming on his right, very close to his car. Ho instinctively applied his brakes, but was unable to avoid colliding with plaintiff, who fell underneath the car. It was found necessary to jack the car up to clear it from plaintiff. To Mr. Johnston, defendant said his brakes were in good order and ho could have pulled up in a very short distance. Had he seen the cyclist coming on his right he would most certainly have pulled up. He admitted that there was an unobstructed view for about 150 vards along Arthur Street from where be was when he first looked for traffic. If he had taken a comprehensive look "die would have seen plaintiff on her *icycle.

Claim "Grossly Excessive" In his address to the jury, Mr. Goldstine said that .the amount claimed was grossly excessive, when it was shown by medical evidence that it was not a serious matter and plaintiff would be able to go back to work. She would not ' suffer any. permanent disability. Counsel denied that there was sufficient evidence to prove the charges of carelessness and negligence. Addressing the jury, Mr. Johnston said that defendant should have looked properly to see if the way was clear, and if it was not then it was his duty to stop. Plaintiff was entitled to rely upon the rule of the road and expect defendant to give way to her. Defendant was not very observant and he had admitted in evidence that had he fiven a comprehensive look he would ave seen plaintiff approaching on her bicycle. "Defendant carried on with a mere glance that did not even disclose .the presence of a cyclist," said Mr. Johnston. /" • t , The case was adjourned until this •jmorning.