Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

CARE IN CROSSING STREETS

THE DUTY OF PEDESTRIANS. A MAGISTRATE’S WARNING. That it is necessary for pedestrians as well as motorists to exercise care in the streets was shown in the Magistrate’s Court by Mr. E. Page, S.M., who disallowed a claim by a pedestrian against a motorist for damages, mainly because plaintiff had been guilty of contributory negligence. “It is the duty of pedestrians crossing narrow streets such as we have in Wellington, to see that the road, is clear,” said the. magistrate. Plaintiff was William Lingard Grinlinton, labourer, of Wellington (Mr. Goodwin), who claimed from William Ernest Brice, taxi-driver, of Wellington (Mr. Leicester), £lOl 10s 3d damages for being run down and injured by defendant’s car on July 5 last. The allegations of negligence made against defendant were: Excessive speed, failing to keep a sufficient look-out, failing tc keep on the correct side of the road, failing to avoid plaintiff, and failing to have his car adequately lighted. Evidence called for plaintiff showed that defendant’s car was travelling very fast and swerved toward the wrong side of the road. Plaintiff was found lying about the centre of the two sets of tramlines'in Willis Street.

Mr. Leicester applied for a non-suit on the ground that plaintiff could have avoided the accident by exercising proper care, but the magistrate reserved the point until he had heard the evidence.

Defendant’s evidence was that he saw plaintiff on the footpath and had no reason to think plaintiff would attempt to cross ' the road. Plaintiff had walked into the left rear portion of the car. The vehicle was lighted, and its speed was not more than 15 miles an hour. . In giving judgment for defendant, with costs, the magistrate said that plaintiff had failed to discharge the onus upon him to prove negligence on the part of defendant. On the other hand, there was evidence that plaintiff had been guilty of contributory negligence. He might have avoided the accident by keeping a proper look-out.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/TDN19301125.2.21

Bibliographic details

Taranaki Daily News, 25 November 1930, Page 3

Word Count
331

CARE IN CROSSING STREETS Taranaki Daily News, 25 November 1930, Page 3

CARE IN CROSSING STREETS Taranaki Daily News, 25 November 1930, Page 3

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert