DAMAGES AWARDED

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22351, 24 February 1936, Page 12

DAMAGES AWARDED

CLAIM BY CYCLIST THE RIGHT-HAND RULE NO LEGAL DECISION GIVEN Damages totalling £647 were awarded by a jury iii the Supreme Court on Saturday, to a young womap cyclist who was knocked down and injured I in a collision with a motor-car at Onehunga in April of last year. As the question whether a bicycle came within ; the scope of the motor regulations, and consequently subject to the righthand rule of the road, had not been the subject of a Supreme Court decision, Mr. Justice Blair noted an objection by counsel, so that tlio point could bo legally argued at a later stage. 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. Plaintiff alleged that on Apiil 9, 1935, as she was riding her bicycle along Arthur Street, defendant, through driving his car. carelessly and negligently, collided with her at An intersection. As a result of the accident plaintiff suffered serious injuries. The claim was for £IOOO general damages and £l3l 10s 2d special damages. In his summing up, His Honor said that for the purpose of the case, tho jury could assume that the right-hand rule did apply in the case of a bicycle. Plaintiff relied on the right-hand rule and she had the right of way when crossing the intersection, ishe had seen the car approaching, but she anticipated that it would stop, but when she realised that it was not going to do so, it was then too late for her to avoid an accident. On this, the jury was entitled to find defendant guilty of negligence. The matter did not end there, however, continued His Honor. All rules of the road were subject to the contingency that if the situation arose when it would be wise to adopt another course it was the duty of all concerned to avoid an accident if possible. If a drunken man lay on the road, a driver of a vehicle would not be in the right if he ran over him. That would lead to a charge of manslaughter and probably murder. The law was that if a party was able to avoid the consequences of tho negligence of another, then it was the party's duty to do so. Plaintiff was riding the most manoeuvrable vehicle that goes on tho road, said His Honor. She admitted she could have pulled up in a second, but it was suggested by counsel on her behalf that the " situation to do this and avoid an accident, arose too late. If the jury came to the conclusion that defendant was negligent, then it still had to consider whether plaintiff, by reasonable care, could have avoided the accident. The jury awarded plaintiff £527 general damages and £l2O special damages.