MOTOR-CYCLES COLLIDE

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 19881, 7 March 1939, Page 2

MOTOR-CYCLES COLLIDE

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES 1 YOUTH’S KNEE INJURED L ‘ JURY CONSIDERS VERDICT Dam. ges amounting to £9(30 8s were claimed by a young man in a civil ; ease which began, in the Supreme Court yesterday before Mr. Justice Norithcroft, the plaintiff having received serious injuries in a collision between two motor-cycles on February 19, 1988, on (the back Ormond road. The plaintiff, Frederick Leonard Wallace, infant son of George Scott Wallace, was represented by Mr. D. E. Chrisp, and the defendant, Graham Bloomfield, toy Mr. J. S. Wauchop. The second motor-cyclist was Larry McMahon. Dr. R. J. B. Hall, medical superintendent at the Cook Hospital, said the plaintiff on admission to hospital was dazed and he did 'not remember what hadi happened. He was then not fully conscious. The witness outlined die injuries from which the plaintiff was suffering. Early in the treatmentthe young man suffered a considerable amount of pain and caused a good deal of anxiety. Since his discharge from hospital the plaintiff had- shown a marked improvement and Dr. Hall corroborated the evidence of the previous medical witness in, regard to the movement of the log- The large amount of creaking in the joint, was due to the irregularity of the surface of the mended kneecap against another surface. lit was difficult to give an opinion on the future prospects _oi die progress of the leg as authorities stated that symptoms such as the plaintiff complained of existed from anything from one and: a-half to 10 years. Unusually Blank in Memory Cross-examined by Mr. Wauchop, the witness agreed that, particularly with the young, it was found that the trouble usually cleared up. To His Honour Dr. Hall said that nearly always there was a blank in the memory of one who had suffered fro-m concussion, the period of the blank varying with the length of the time ithc concussion prevailed. It would be difficult to believe that the plaintiff would have a reliable memory right up to the time of the accident. Mr. Wauchop submitted that there was no evidence of negligence in the Story related by the plaintiff. Riding as he did 10ft. behind McMahon, Mr. Wauchop submitted, the plaintiff allowed himself no opportunity of stopping should something go wrong with the motor-cycle ahead, this disclosing the cause of the accident. It was admitted that McMahon was the agent of the defendant, Bloomfield, but McMahon was .tire man against whom the allegations of negligence were made. Mr. Wauchop said that the plaintiff, Wallace, was evasive in his replies when, under cross-examina-tion. A motor mechanic apprentice, Larry Anthony McMahon, said he was 18 years of age and had done a lot of motor-cycling before the accident and I ad not bad an accident previously. Two Mishaps in Morning The witness said he bad gone on the pillion with the plaintiff while the latter delivered his papers in the early morning. On (the journey the witness did not think 'that Wallace’s handling of the* machine was good, lie told Wallace several times that he had better watch his road for sections were treacherous. They had previously fallen off when, the machine was travelling on .shingle. Not long after the motor-cycle slid down a 3ft. bank, both being (thrown: off. The witness asked to be allowed to ride the motorcycle to town as he did not feel prepared to sit on the back any more with the plaintiff In control. On arrival in town it was decided to get the lamp fixed and brakes adjusted. In the afternoon, the witness said, f.he foreman of the cycle shop in Which he worked loaned him a machine to go mushrooming. For the most part the plaintiff took the lead. In King’s road the witness took the lead, It'he two cycles usually being about, 40yds apart. Before reaching the .turn* 'he decided to change hisdirection, into the Waimata road, at the same time signalling bis intention. Wall ace hit bis handle bar and' both were thrown off their machines. The witness escaped without injury, and then lifted the cycle off the plaintiff, -v'-~ i-'V'rms.ciOUS.

Wihen he called at Wallace’s house he 'told the 'lad’s another what had happened. He did not recollect having said anything about waving to a cousin, and had never attempted to explain whalt had caused the mishap. He had asked the plaintiff why he had not seen this signal before lie made the 1 ‘i,vn. and' the plaintiff said he remembered- nothing about the events after

leaving King’s road. The plaintiff told him later that there would be a court case. Did Not Visit Plaintiff Later Questioned by Mr. Chrisp the witness, McMahon, said he did not visit the plaintiff in the hospital, although the two were friends. He felt that the other lad did not wish to speak to him. The witness had given ample warning of hi.s turn. Re-examined by Mr. Wauchop, the witness -said lie was not embarrassed by the tin on the cycle tank. He considered he made the turn at about 15 m.p.h. Dr. R.' M. Gunn gave evidence that he examined the injured' youth on February 2, 1939, and found that the only disability was the boy's inability to flex his leg beyond a right angle. He completely agreed with the report of the bone specialist, and thought that the plaintiff’s chances of further improvement were good. The witness' said that if the position did not improve beyond its present condition tho plaintiff undoubtedly would be affected in his work on a farm. To Mr. Chrisp, the witness agreed that there was a possibility that an improvement might never come about. Dr. Harold Angell, who said he examined the plaintiff’s knee early in February, corroborated the evidence of Dr. Gunn. Ultimately, he thought, 'he boy would be able to bend his knee sufficiently for -all ordinary purposes. Addresses to the Jury When the hearing was resumed today, Mr. Wauchop submitted that the olaintiff had placed himself in a dangerous position by riding so close behind McMahon. There was every likelihood that Wallace was going *o have a good leg, said counsel, when dealing with the po'nt of damages. Mr. Chrisp said the plaintiff's father had said that McMahon told him he had made up his mind suddenly to turn into the Waimata road. He referred to the two statements made by McMahon explaining the cause of the accident. McMahon should have heard the aporoach of the nlaintiff and taken more orccautions before turning. Wallace, had had a painful convalescence and none of the doctors called had been definite in giving a time for the complete recovery of the youth. His Honour said the action was founded on negligence, the meaning of which he defined. If there was contributory negligence the law said that a person had only himself to blame. Ho reviewed the evidence shortly, and said it was difficult .to believe why McMahon had swung round the corner suddenly, knowing another vehicle was following. The case was not one of two individual cyclists going thenvarious wavs, but of two travelling in the same direction, and the question was whether the leader had given sufficient warning to his companion of his decision, to turn from the main road. A man with a game knee was deprived of a good deal of the enjoyment of life and it was for the jury to consider the extent of the disability to the plaintiff, continued His Honour. The amount of damages seemed to be large in view of the fact that the youth was now able to work and was earning full award rates at his job. The jury retired at 11.45 a.m.