CLAIM FOR DAMAGES

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXV, Issue 19551, 5 February 1938, Page 16

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES

MOTOR-CYCLIST’S INJURY DRIVER OF CAR SUED JURY UNABLE TO AGREE (Per Press Association.) WELLINGTON, this day. Injury to a motor-cyclist, James Alexander Robertson Menzies, in a collision with a car at the intersection of Thorndon quay and Tinakori road on August -31 was the subject of a claim for £1620 6s 4d brought in the Supreme Court before the Chief Justice, Sir Michael Myers, and a jury. The plaintiffs were James Alexander Robertson Menzies, Wellington, clerk, and his guardian ad litem, Duncan Robertson Menzies, Wellington, public accountant. The defendant was Charles Edward Wheeler, Wellington, journalist, the driver of the car. Mr. E. D. Blundell appeared for plaintiffs, and Mr. 11. F. O’Leary, K.C., with him Mr. S. G. Stephenson, for defendant.

The plaintiffs claimed that James Menzies was riding a motor-cycle in a northerly direction along Thorndon quay on his correct side of the road with the intention of proceeding across the intersection. The defendant was driving a motor car along Tinakori road with the intention of crossing the intersection and proceeding back south along Thorndon quay. While the plaintiff was crossing the intersection he collided with the car driven by the defendant because of the latter’s negligence. The defendant was alleged to have been negligent in the following respects: In failing to give way to a vehicle approaching from his right; in cutting across the line of oncoming traffic; in failing to keep a proper and adequate look-out; in failing to pull up or otherwise drive his car so as to avoid a collision; in failing to give an adequate signal of his intention to turn; and in failing to proceed directly and quickly across the intersection.

Because of the injuries received and their effect on his progress in his career, the plaintiff claimed £55 6s 4d special and £ISOO general damages, and his father claimed £65 for expenses incurred through medical, dental and hospital charges. The defence was a denial of negligence and an allegation that the collision was due solely to the negligence of the plaintiff, James Menzies, in that he rode his motor-cycle at an excessive speed and failed to keep a proper look-out; and that if it were proved that the defendant was negligent, notwithstanding such negligence the collision was due to the negligence of the plaintiff James Menzies, he having the last opportunity of avoiding same. No agreement was reached by the jury, and on the application of Mr. Blundell for the plaintiffs, the Chief Justice granted an order for a new trial, the date to be fixed later.