JUDGMENT GIVEN FOR £954

Taranaki Daily News, 20 February 1932, Page 8

JUDGMENT GIVEN FOR £954

MOTOR-CYCLISTS COLLIDE

ACCIDENT AT TAUMAHA ROAD. CLAIM FOR DAMAGES SUCCEEDS. r -' ~ *J Judgment for £954 ss. Id was entered by Mr. Justice Blair last night in the Supreme Court in New Plymouth in favour of Henry Allan Richards, who was hurt about midnight on September 6 when he was knocked off his motor-cycle

by John Potts, another motor-cyclist. Potts was riding behind Richards along ' the Patea-Hawera Road, when the collision occurred as the latter was turning ! into the Taumaha Road.

, Richards, who was severely injured on 'various parts of the body, the kidneys in particular, had claimed £l5OO general damages. The jury, which retired at A 7 p.m. -and returned at 9.30 p.m., allowed. him £750 general damages against Potts, plus £204 5s Id special damages. Regarding the special damages claimed there was no dispute as to £B4 5s Id, but it was contended by the defence that £B6 Is incurred for.-treatment in a., private hospital and £BB 15s for medical attention by a private practitioner should he allowed for- at public hospital rates. His Honour awarded Richards costs as per scale, disbursements; witnesses’ expenses to be fixed by the registrar, and £l6 15s for the second day of trial. DEFENDANT GIVES EVIDENCE. Continuing his evidence yesterday, Potts said that when Richards turned he was ‘about five yards, or perhaps more, behind him. Witness could not get past behind Richards so he shouted when he saw an accident was likely. His leading wheel struck Richards’ cycle between the forks and the front of the leading wheel. Witness had tried to stop from the time that Richards turned. He did not remember the dragging of Richards across the road. Witness finished on the mud, about six feet from the metal on the Taumaha Road. After the ,accident. witness found himself on his feet. He picked up his machine and at Richards’ request pulled the latter’s cycle from on top of him. Richards said he had put his hand out. There was no argument about the matter, and no admission. Witness placed both cycles against the bank, and while he was doing so Richards rose and asked him if he could walk. Witness replied that he could. Richards complained df soreness in his leg and back, which he was holding; he inferred he could not walk well. Later he crossed the road and sat . down, and then asked witness if; he had seen several people on the road further back.

At Richards’ request witness went back and met Hamilton. He told him there had been an accident with someone named Richards, who had asked that help be obtained, saying they would know who he was. Witness offered to take Hamilton back on the cycle, but he refused. A girl with Hamilton said she was rather nervous at being left by herself, so witness stayed with her while Hamilton went to the scene of the accident. He might have told Hamilton they had collided, but could not remember laying anything else. Hamilton was not telling the truth when he said witness had said he was to blame. Witness was knocked about by , the accident, and was confined to bed for about three days. On the Thursday after the accident he visited Richards in hospital at Hawera. Witness mentioned the accident twice, blit Richards said he had been asked not, to speak about it. He said he had crossed over with the intention that witness should pass behind. % DETAILS PRIOR TO ACCIDENT. Under .cross-examination, witness said the sides of the road were in very good condition. He had a reasonably clear view of Richards. Probably Richards was about 50 yards from the corner ■ when he began to slow down. Witness was about . 20 yards behind when Richards; was 40 yards-from the corner. If witness had slowed down as rapidly as Richards did it would have been because .there was something wrong with his .cycle, or that there was an obstruction in front. Witness could see reasonably well that there was no obstruction. Witness commenced:to slow up about 60 yards from the corner, when he appreciated that Richards was slowing up. He switched off the engine to "idling.” When from 45 to 50 yards from the-corner he began to use the brakes, having then become reasonably sure • that' Richards was going tp stop.. , .. . It was not possible that Richards’ arm was extended out straight. Witness had, however, developed the idea that Richards intended to stop. Had he done so witness would have passed' him On the intersection. . The cycles were not nearly at right, angles at. the; impact,', as Richards had suggested, but at an acute angle.. ‘;■ / f 1 .. Constable Lemm, Hawera, who investigated the . accident, said Hamilton told him that while trying to. start his own motor-cycle.; outside Porteous’. gate he saw two' others pass him at about 45 miles per hour. A short time afterwards he heard a crack. Subsequently a man came to him, told him there had been an accident and asked him to go down. This man (Potts) said he had run into a man, who had signalled that he was going, to turn the corner, but Potts was too close to pull up. Hamilton did not say Potts had said he was in any way to blame. Dimmock, in his statement to the

police, said that when driving home from Kakaramea he and his companion, """Honey,'saw someone sitting on the lefthand side of the road. After the car was stopped the sitting man, Richards, said, “Take me home to the boss.” Honey, drove Richards to Taylor’s house, while Dimmock walked down the road and met Potts returning with assistance. Dimmock related that Potts' had told him he saw Richards signal, but that it was too late to pull up. Dimmock said he was more concerned how the injured man had got on than to attend to what Potts had said. When asked if he had any more to say, Dimmock stated that he had not. Cross-examined, the constable said that Potts in his statement said he was practically on top of Richards before he saw ' Richards put his hand out. EXPERT MEDICAL EVIDENCE. ■ .Tnhn Maxwell Clarke, F.R.C.S. (Eng.) M.Ch (N.Z.), F.R.C.S. (Aust.), said he examined Richards first on January 18. Richards was in a private hospital in New Plymouth under his oversight from February 5 to February 8. Richards’ ’ knee was normal on examination, though Richards complained of a “clicking.”. Richards said definitely there was no “locking” of the joint. The .examination showed* 3 no evidence of any internal injury to the knee-joint. The condition causing the loss of sensation was disappearing; - Referring to the bleeding from the kidneys, Mr. Clarke said it often happened that there was little bleeding from • severe injury and much from a small injury. His opinion was that there was an obvious fallacy m the feet made at the New Plymouth hospital. He agreed with Dr. Trehay’s teste jte WelUnctoa, showing a normal func-.

tioning of the kidneys. Dr. Trehay would have carried out sufficient tests to satisfy himself regarding the condition. of the kidneys. As a result of four tests carried out by. Mr. Clarke he was satisfied Richards’ renal functions were normal.

Referring to the continuance of bleeding and other symptoms after Richards’ return from Wellington, and to his continued illness, Air. Clarke suggested the bleeding and. pain might have been a result of irritation caused by the instruments, it had been necessary to use in making a certain test. Witness was definitely of the opinion that Richards had recovered from his kidney injuries. His lassitude was comparable with that following a severe operation, and would gradually disappear. It would- be six months, or thereabouts, before he was able again to take part in his normal work. Referring to the injured knee, Mr. Clarke said he would not advise Richards to play football this year, but he could next year. Many footballers received blows on the kidneys with consequent bleeding, though they had never had a previous kidney injury. Cross-examined, Mr. Clarke agreed that Richards had suffered severely since the accident.

It was intimated by counsel for Richards that the amount of special damages had been agreed upon should Richards succeed in the action, except that the other side contended that the charges for private hospital a.nd medical, attention should be at public hospital rates.