WHO MUST PAY?

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 7852, 14 July 1911, Page 1

WHO MUST PAY?

A COLLISION AND DAMAGES TRIAL RUN OF A MOTOR CAR. A case arising out of tho collision of a motor car with, a cyclist, to tho considerable discomfort of tho cyclist, camo IWoro tho Court of Appeal yesterday afternoon. Tho parties were James Martin Samson, auct.oneor, Dunedin, appellant, and Louisa Mary Aitchison, school teacher, Dunedin, respondent. Mr A. S. Adams, with Mr W. G. Hay, appeared for the appellant, and Mr Martin Chapman, K.C., with Mr A. C. Hanlon. tor iao respondent.

The bench was occupied by tho Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) and Justices Denniston, Edwards and Chapman. On April Stii, IUIO, a young woman named Lou.sa Mary Aitchison, while riding a bicycle in Princes street, Dunedin, was run over by a motor oar driven by Albert Aloson Collins, and heiongmg to Janus Martin, baru&on, who was aiso in ■the car at tho time. Dy reason, of tno collision pm.null roceivtit paj-auu and serious houny injuries, irom winch sue uni hot recover lur some considerable time. In respect ot these injuries she bUt-a suiiiiuu u> recover Alooo ttnt>giixg tixat tno eoj-iision. was due to uie ncinigcut control ana management oi tuo car.

I Ai tue time Samsou was negotiating WIXU UdOi.US, Wild IWU XttclX il pIy.COD HJxXiXX UllVcl, HR" C.. 0 C-.ty Ol 11 ID tij co.l* LU CUUIUI, lllulUtJX', WjlO lUolltU til pUl‘CHilDt' R 10 I'Uil ill ColiilCCLlOO WlUll lit! OciiiluiUgliOllDO OUaßlew* ill loaiuatU. At tile liucii lug 01 tile CaaO ail J UDCiCO VV 11iioiuo I’cau Uo question as u> W netUer liiiiuia m-ynytnco a aii saiuaun s neyugeuec u>r law purposes oa mo actum 101* uryunieut later. iitimumii lay jury agtecu in bunging iu a. \ -enact lorpiamUn on tua giaauU max me car had not been sKimmy or carta uily driven ax mo limtt al uio acc.aeat, auu taiey iUiOwta X too ctumuges. lUc-reaiier defendant moved in the Supremo court at uuuedin lor judgment tor mo aeienaaiu or judgment ot uousuit on tno grounds: TUac ujau tlio eviuoucs at tno mat me deienuant is ent,uea to suca j augment; mat me deienuant was not auswcraoie tor tile negligence of tno driver ol tne motor car, ana mat there was no negligence on- the part of the detondant; mat the juuge misdirected the jury hy iniormuig mom that U they lounu mat tne driver ot; tne motor car hau been guilty ot negligence wmcn oaused tne accident, tna-r. negligence must tor tlie.,purpose of'the - case oe assumed to be or that it was the negligence of the defendant; that tno .verdict of the jury was against me weight ol evidence.; mat tno damages ot the j ury were excessive. T‘nis motion was dismissed by Mr Justice Williams, and it was this decision tnat Samson sought to have reversed by mo court of Appeal. Apart from tnis action there was litigation between Samson and Collins concerning tne purchase of tno car. Samson sued to have ilrs Collins complete,her arrangement or contract to purchase the car, and he obtained judgment iu the Supreme Court in his favour. It was therefore submitted for the appellant that Collins was in charge of the car on behalf of his mother in order that ho might test the car before she should purchase it. The question at issue was really as to whether Collins was driving for his mother or for Samson at the time, and in support of the view that ho was trying the car for his mother, and therefore responsible for the control of it, it was submitted for the appellant that any interference by Samson iu the control of the oar would have defeated the object of the trial. The case will be resumed this morning, i