CYCLIST’S DEATH

Southland Times, Issue 20181, 18 May 1927, Page 9

CYCLIST’S DEATH

WIDOW CLAIMS £l5OO. DENNISON CASE RECALLED. £BO7 AWARDED. The Supreme Court was occupied yesterday for the greater part of the day hearing a claim for £l5OO by Lucy Charlotte Witty, widow, of Waikiwi, against the Southland County Council for the death of her husband.

The statement of claim set out that the action was brought for her benefit because she had suffered damage from the negligence of John Guy Dennison, a servant of the defendant corporation, in running down her husband on March 8, 1926. The negligence alleged was excessive speed and not keeping a proper look-out. Mr W. A. Stout and Mr J. Tait appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Horace Macalister for the defendant.

The following Jury was empanelled: — Leonard William Spencer (foreman), Arthur Eustace Wesney, Arthur Thomas Jones, Thomas Battersby, John Farquhar Mcßae, William Martin, junior, Angelo Pascoe, Arthur Amos Britton, John Winders, David Leigh, Robison, George Anderson, and Thomas Rankin.

Mr Tait in opening the case for the plaintiff said that the claim for .£l5OO damages was laid under the Death by Accident Compensation Act. He reviewed exhaustively the incidents prior to and at the time of the accident, and submitted that the Jury would have little ■'difficulty in deciding that the deceased had been run down by a car driven by Dennison. Counsel reviewed the Ihw of negligence and submitted that Dennison’s car had been driven negligently at an excessive speed. He concluded his address by referring to the extent of the damages the widow was entitled to should they find in her favour.

There were a large number of witnesses called for the plaintiff, their evidence occupying the greater part of the day. They testified as to the accident, the damages to Dennison’s car, the injuries deceased sustained, and the financial position of the widow.

Only two witnesses were called by the defence, the principal one being Ewart Hannah, who was with Dennison at the time of the accident.

Mr Macalister in his address to the Jury mentioned that the proceedings had been instituted against the County Council and Dennison, their engineer. These proceedings had not been instituted till some six months after the death of deceased, and Dennison by that time was well out of the country. Counsel said that it was obvious that deceased had been killed by being run down on the North Road, probably by a car. There was no direct evidence of its having been Dennison’s car that had knocked deceased down, and he asked them to carefully consider whether they were correct in inferring that Dennison had run Witty down. In regard to negligence, counsel submitted that there was no evidence of negligent driving. The onus was on the plaintiff to prove that if Dennison was the driver of the car in question he was guilty of negligence. He submitted that the plaintiffs had failed to prove their case. Mr Stout in his address argued that the damage to the cycle and to Dennison’s car were evidence of the high speed at which the car was driven. The damage to Dennison’s car corresponded with the damage expected from such a collision, and counsel submitted that all the circumstances pointed to negligent driving.

In his direction to the Jury his Honour remarked that the onus of proving negligence rested with the plaintiff. The three points the Jury had to decide were (1) whether Dennison driving his car ran over Witty; (2) was Dennison guilty of negligence in his driving; (3) what damages, if any, should be awarded. He reviewed the evidence as to the probability of Dennison’s car being responsible for the death of deceased, and as to negligence,, with special reference to the question of speed. Finally his Honour directed as to the amount of damages assuming that the Jury found in favour of the widow.

His Honour’s address concluded at 6 p.m., when the Court adjourned to enable the Jury to consider the verdict and partake of refreshments.

The Court resumed at 7.30 p.m., when the foreman of the Jury announced the verdict, which was for the plaintiff. The damages awarded amounted to £BO7 with costs and disbursements as fixed by the Registrar.