DAMAGES CLAIM BY MOTORIST

Southland Times, Issue 24680, 27 February 1942, Page 6

DAMAGES CLAIM BY MOTORIST

CASE IN SUPREME COURT The hearing was begun in the Supreme Court yesterday before his Honour Mr Justice Kennedy and a jury of a claim for £646/2/6 damages arising out of a motor collision. The plaintiff was James Alfred Cuttance, farmer, of Springhills, and the defendant was Ronald L. Kennedy, farmer, of Browns. Mr B. W. Hewat appeared for the plaintiff and Mr S. M. Macalister for the defendant. The following jury was empanelled: Alexander Edwin Gardner (foreman), James Morrison, jun., Albert Andrew Knight, Roderick Hugh Knox, George Louis Creasey, Leonard Henry Ayers, George Andrew Couling, Edward John Harrington, William Sutton, Albert Gordon Campbell, William Murdoch and Hugh Wylie Paterson. The case was the result of a collision between two motor-cars near the Settlers bridge on the InvercargillBrowns highway on July 7, 1941. The plaintiff had been driving towards Invercargill and the defendant had been travelling in the opposite direction. The plaintiff alleged that the collision was due to the negligence and unskilful management of his car by the defendant and specified the following acts of negligence:—(a) failing to keep to the left of the roadway ;(b) driving across the roadway in front of the plaintiff’s car when the vehicles were approaching each other; (c) driving at a speed which was excessive and improper in the circumstances; (d) failing to have his car under proper control; and (e) not keeping a proper look-out. The plaintiff claimed that he had suffered extensive injuries to the chest wall, injury to the lung and a double fracture of six ribs. He had been in hospital for three weeks and five days and was totally incapacitated for six weeks. He was still partially incapacitated. He had incurred expenses in his farm management, five ewes had been killed and he had been prevented from rabbiting on his property at a time when skins were most valuable. His car had been damaged beyond repair. He claimed £4OO general damages and £246/2/6 special damages. The defendant denied the allegations of negligence and claimed that the effective cause of the collision was the negligent and unskilful manner in which the plaintiff managed his car in (a) failing to keep his car to the lefthand side of the road; (b) failing to keep a proper look-out, and (c) failing to have his car under proper control. It was also submitted that if the defendant was negligent, the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence. Evidence for the plaintiff and part of the defendant’s case had been heard when the Court was adjourned until 10 o’clock this morning.