COLLISION SEQUEL

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 19880, 6 March 1939, Page 6

COLLISION SEQUEL

MOTOR-CYCLE MISHAP

SUPREME COURT HEARING! £960 DAMAGES CLAIMED A civil action arising out of a collision .between two motor-cycles and involving a claim tor .uJOO 8s damages' was started this morning in the Supreme Court before Mr. Justice Northcroftt. The case was one in which t'ne plaintiff, Frederick Leonard Wallace, infant son of George Scott Wallace, claimed damages from Graham Bloomfleld, in respect of a collision, that occurred on February 19, 1938, near the Waimaia road 'turn-off from the Ormond back road. The plaintiff was represented by Mr. D. E. Chrisp, and the defendant by Mr. J. S. Wauchop. The following common jurors wero sworn in for the second week of the sessions: —Herbert Allen, Richard Anstruther-Burson, John Blight, Cyril ■ H. B'loxham, Theodore Cameron, Glen Caulton, Arthur Mallet Clark, Frederick M. Coker, Darey Whitley Comber, Clarence G. Corbett, Clifford Solomon Domincy, William Baker Edwards, James J. Fletcher, Richard J. Francis, Henry James Gordon, Herbert E. K. Gould, Fenwick J. Graham, Edwin Grundy, James Gunn, David F. Hair, Charles E. Hall, Harvey McG. Hamilton, Harry Hankey, Bernard W. Heffer, James R. Henderson, John Francis Melvin, Henry T. Moore, Robert G. Morrison, Robert James Morrison, Archibald S. McColl, William J. McGibbon, Douglas J. McKinnon, John McLatchic, Geoffrey Nicol, Henry A. Nicoll, Fred Ouseley, Francis H. Parker, Thomas B. Pearson, John Rateliffe, Herbert Read, Nofetn J. C. Redstone, Valentine G. Steggall, John 11. Turner, John Twigloy, Edward J. Vennell, and James Wilkinson. William Calvin and Frederick A. Sparrow were excused from service. The following jury was empanelled: John Rateliffe, foreman, John, F. Melvin, Clarence G. Corbett, James Wilkinson, Valentine G. Steggall, Glen Caulton, Cyril H. Bloxham, James J. Fletcher, Chunks E. Hall, John H. Turner. Richard J. Francis, and Clifford S Domincy. Day of Kopuawhara Disaster Mr. Chrisp said 1 the accident occurred at 5 p.m. on February 19, the day of the Kopuawhara flood disaster, the roads having been affected by the heavy rains. That afternoon the plaintiff was riding a motor-cycle and *i friend, Larry McMahon, was riding another as the agent of the defendant, Bloomfield. Prior to the accident, the plain'.iff had had much experience, having used his machine on a newspaper delivery for the past 13 months, riding 150 miles a day for six days a week. On the day of the accident, continued Mr. Chrisp, the plaintiff and McMahon decided to go mushrooming, McMahon borrowing a motor-cycle belonging ito the defendant. After going about the flats looking for a likely patch of mushrooms they decided to <o to Waihirere. Wallace was following McMahon at about a distance of IOSt. when .the latter suddenly changed direction and the accident followed. The two machines were .travelling at 20 to 25 m.p.h. just prior to the collision. McMahon was carrying a cutdown petrol Am between his knees and •M'ten had do take his hand off the handle bar to siteady the tin. Mr. Chrisp said the plaintiff alleged that McMahon was negligent in that he had turned the corner without giving a signal, .that McMahon knew hewas following closely behind and should have taken extra precautions, and that the two had agreed to go to Waihirere and McMahon should liavt been more than ordinarily caretu. when he decided to go into the Wa.mata road. Two alleged statements were made by McMahon, said Mr. Chrisp, to which importance might be attached. MoMahon went to Wallace's home after thfl accident and explained that the two had had a slight accident, McMa'hon's attention having been distracted when he waved to a cousin and Lcn Wallace had hit him. Mr. Chrisp submitted that that was obviously wrong because there was no cousin there. Later he told the injured Iboy'is 'father that he had suddenly made up his mind to go up to Waimata and Wallace had hit him. If that was true it would confirm the story of the plaintiff. The injuries .suffered by the plaintiff included concussion and a compound fracture of the kneecap. Special damages claimed totalled £139 4s and general damages £750. the plaintiff having been permanently disabled as a result of the injuries. Plaintiff's Evidence The plaintiff, in evidence, said he was 18 years of age and his motorcycle was in good order, with the brakes good. (McMahon told him that he had had a license for about three months. Riding with a tin between the knees would have been dangerous on a rough road. McMahon, who had braked and suddenly swung round just prior to the collison, had not given any signal. The witness considered it was safe for him to be riding' so close behind. It would have been safe to have turned the corner at only 10 m.p.h. on that day. He had been admitted to 'hospital on February 19, 1938, .and did not come out until April 15, 1938. It was still necessary for him 10 give his leg treatment to stop the pain. "(He was unable to mount a horse, climb hills properly, milk properly, kneel, unable to go near stock, and was slowed up in his work. To Mr. Wauchop the plaintiff said he was employed as a cowboy on Kokomoko station, and had to milk five cows. McMahon was with him on the pillion on the morning delivery of newspapers on February 19 and the witness had had two minor mis'haps, skidding once on a slippery side road and later in some loose shingle. Both times the two had come off the machine. Further cross-examined, the plaintiff said that McMahon had been asking all the time if he could take a turn at riding, but had not said that he would not ride with the witness any longer owing to the two spills, ille did not remember McMahon saying 'to him later that he was not to blame for the accident and the witness should not be -annoyed with him. The witness had not said anything about a court case. McMahon had not visited him while he was in hospital. The knee had greatly improved since last September and a bone specialist had said he thought the leg would continue to improve. News of the Accident The father of the previous witness, George Scott Wallace, said McMahon went to the house shortly after 5 p.m. on the day of the accident and said Len had hurt his knee and that he would go into town to get a van

to take him home. The witness said that he would go in his car, and McMahon explained that the mishap had been caused by him waving to a cousin and the plaintiff accidentally tipping his handles. While in the car McMahon told a different story of his sudden intention to change his direction. The surface of the road at the scene of the accident was greasy that afternoon.

Cross-examined by Mr. Wauchop, the witness said he understood the condition ol the knee had been improving. When he arrived at the scene of the accident the boy did not know him, and did not appear to be conscious. He y iold McMahon to report the matter to the police. As far as he knew the brakes on the machine were in good order. Condition of Plaintiff

Dr. Frit/. Kahlenberg said that on December G he examined the plaintiff and found his injuries to consist of knee trouble. His knee could not be flexed to an angle of more than 00 degrees, the full range being at least 135 degrees. The patient was able to stand on his toes and walked with practically no limp. There wag no excessive fluid on the joint, all symptoms being consistent with a fracture of the knee joint. The left thigh was smaller than the right, indicating a certain loss of use. The witness made an examination recently, when he noticed that the injury had improved by 50 per cent. Further improvement was possible, but the treatment already had taken a long time. The condition of the leg would make it awkward for the plaintiff for the type of work he was doing. He might be affected by a possible flare-up from any further injury. His complaint that his knee hurt him in cold weather was a usual one with joint injuries. The witness did not think the knee would properly heal up. To Mr. Wauchop the witness said that during the past three months the improvement in the amount of movement had been decided. The youth of the plaintiff was in his favour. The witness said he agreed with certain points in the report of the bone specialist, but what would happen in time was indefinite. (Proceeding)