WIDOW SEEKS DAMAGES

Taranaki Daily News, 15 November 1934, Page 11

WIDOW SEEKS DAMAGES

ROAD ACCIDENT SEQUEL WAS MOTOR DRIVER NEGLIGENT? £l3OO ACTION IN SUPREME COURT. HAWERA RESIDENTS AT LAW. Claiming that her husband had died as the result of a street accident caused by the negligence of a motor driver, a Hawera woman, Mrs. Elizabeth Leggett, sought to recover £l2OO damages from James Mottershead Collins, a 19-year-old farm worker, at the New Plymouth sessions of the Supreme Court yesterday. The action was heard before Mr. Justice Smith and a jury of 12. Mrs. Leggett alleged that Collins’ car had been travelling at an excessive speed on Tawhiti Road when it struck the bicycle ridden by Leggett at the intersection with Burns Street; that Collins had failed to observe the rider’s signal that he was turning; that Collins had been driving on the wrong side of the road; that he had failed to pull up and avoid a collision when he might have done so; and that he had attempted to pass the cyclist on an intersection. Damages were estimated on the consideration that Leggett had been earning £4 15s a week at the time of his death in his occupation'as a cleaner.. The action was brought pursuant to the provisions of the Death By Accidents Compensation Act. The defence denied negligence and affirmed that the accident had been caused by Leggett. Mrs. Leggetc was represented by Mr. A. K. North. Mr. J. C. Baily and Mr. C. M. Moss appeared for Collins. The following jury was empanelled: Messrs. L. H. Philpott, G. H. Perry, H. Shaw, R. Briggs, J. Bird, A. E. Melody, A. E. Collins, G. Tremlett, R. T. Russ, C. D. Grant, H. A. Lee, J. L. Baxter. CASE FOR CLAIMANT. Mr. North, outlining Mrs. Leggett’s case, said the. action arose as the result of a collision between Collins’ car and Leggett’s bicycle on June 20. Leggett, although he gave no signs of having received serious injury at the time, died later as a result Mr. Leggett had lived near the comer of Bums Street and Tawhiti Road. On the day of the accident he was riding a bicycle home from a football match. While turning either into the Burns Street road formation or across to the footpath Leggett was struck by a motor-car driven by Collins. He signalled the turn. The driver of the car made an ineffectual endeavour to stop and knocked the cyclist down. At that time he did not seem to be badly injured. He was not ■ unconscious but later .he lapsed suddenly into a coma and died in hospital. Collins was driving a car which required the use of pedals instead of the ordinary gear lever. Mrs. Leggett alleged that Collins had been travelling too fast, as shown by a 64-feet skid mark. Collins had merely put bis car into reverse. Mrs. Leggett would submit that Collins meant to pass the bicycle on the wrong side at the intersection. It was further claimed that Collins had failed when he was required to pull up. It would be claimed that if he had acted correctly he could have pulled up without striking the man. Constable F. N. Lemm. Hawera, said in evidence that the accident was reported to the Hawera police. It was not thought that Leggott was seriously injured. He examined the scene of the accident that evening and took measurements next day. The skid mark was of the "one-wheel skid variety” and was 64 feet 3 inches in length. He examined the car and found practially no damage had been done to it Both bicycle and car were examined at the police station later. On the right hand side of the carrier attached to the front of thfe bicycle were traces of black paint, which had apparently come from a dint in the left hand mudguard of the car. Collins had claimed that he was travelling at a speed not more than 20 miles an hour. The constable had not been altogether satisfied with that explanation. He thought that in view of the skid mark the car had been travelling faster. DIFFERENCE OF OPINION, ; Cross examined, Constable Lemm said it was possible that his conclusion regarding the speed of the'car was not shared by his superior officers. The bicycle carrier was not damaged. Photographs of the bicycle and car produced in evidence for the defence and showing the scratch on the car were stated to have been taken on the morning following the accident. Constable Lemm said he could not understand why there were • marks of only one wheel on the road but it was certain the skid mark had been made by tyre of the car. Opposite the gate ot Mr. Leggett’s house there were no marks on the road such as would be made by a push bicycle. There were a few bicycle marks on the footpath but they had been walked over and were indistinct. No measurements were taken on the night of the accident but the pegs were placed then. The first part of the skid mark on the bitumen was indistinct. Mrs. Elizabeth Leggett, widow of William J. Leggett, gave evidence of her husband’s condition after the accident. His condition seemed normal and he said that he had put his hand out, but after Dr. Young had been called and he had been put to bed he lapsed into a coma and was taken to hospital. . Following an operation he died. Her husband’s wages as a cleaner averaged about £4 15s a week from regular jobs, cleaning banks and offices. He had also other casual work. He worked every day and his health was good. Following his death she had received about £6O from an insurance policy but no other estate. She occasionally helped her husband on a particularly busy day. Generally, however, she stayed at home. There were two children, a son and a daughter. The son was an inmate of Porirua mental hospital and could not contribute to her support The daughter was self supporting. She sent comforts for her son at the mental hospital and contributed 5s a week to the hospital for his keep. To Mr. Moss Mrs. Leggett said that she was aware that the sum of the claim had been increased from £lOOO to £l2OO. Winifred Elizabeth Muriel Leggett said she had also attended the football match on the day of the accident. She gave similar evidence to that of her mother regarding Leggett’s condition after the accident and his work. She also stated that she had been required to contribute more to the household since her fathers death than before. ‘ . To Mr. Moss Miss Leggett said she had heard her father say “I put out my hand” several times. On the first occasion Collins made no reply but the second time her father made his remark he said, "If you did, I didn’t see it.” Charles Walter Toy, aged 14 years, an eye-witness of the accident, said he saw both cyclist md car before the accident When he first saw the car it was on the wrong side of the road. The cyclist was just turning the corner. He had botn hands on the handlebars. The car skidded and the front left mudguard hit the front of the bicycle a glancing blow and Leggett was thrown off to the left. Toy showed the point of impact -and demonstrated his recollection of the accident on a large scale plan produced in Court, _

He said he knew that Leggett was in the habit of riding on to the footpath but did not think Leggett was going to ride on to the footpath on this occasion. He looked as if he were going round into the street. He could not remember any occasion on which Leggett had gone into his front gate from the road, lifting the bicycle over the watertable. He remembered nothing about the speed of the car or the severity of the impact. He did not see Leggett put out his hand, because he was already turning the corner when he first saw him.

David H. Gould, aged 17, also gave evidence of having seen the accident from beneath the verandah of a nearby store. George Robinson, another eye-witness of the accident, said he saw Leggett- put out his right arm to signal the turn. He did not see the impact because the car blocked the view. Collins was travelling fast and he had the impression that he had been forced to turn into Burns Street in an endeavour to avoid the He heard the brakes squealing and heard the impact and had run to pick Leggett up. Leggett was conscious and remonstrated with Collins for being on the wrong side of the road. Collins said he did not see the signal and that he thought Leggett was going straight on. He was alarmed when he observed Collins’ car and another car on the Tawhiti Road travelling so fast. He was positive there were two cars and that Leggett put his arm out He knew Leggett was slightly deaf, but he also knew that it was possible for him to hear when people were speaking some distance away, provided they spoke lyBRAKING SYSTEM OF CAR. Henry E. Jenkins, a New Plymouth motor engineer, gave evidence of the braking and transmission system of the model of car Collins drove. In an emergency it would be natural, if one wished

to stop the car hurriedly, to use the footbrake and the reverse gear pedal. Such a combination would be very effective. Assuming that Collin’s car was in perfectly good order and condition it would be ridiculous to state that a car which left a 64-foot skid mark had been travelling at 20 miles an hour or less. About 40 miles an hour would be nearer its speed. With the reverse gear used as a brake he would not necessarily expect to see drag marks on the road. Mr. Moss, briefly outlined the defence. He said that evidence for the defence would show Collins had slowed to make a railway, crossing, and that he could not possibly have been travelling at 40 miles an hour in an old car of the make used. There was no evidence that Collins was negligent. He braked as any careful driver would when he saw the cyclist edging on to the bitumen surface of the road. He had a clean record as a motorist. The defence would claim that Leggett gave no warning and that he turned suddenly to collide with the car. Expert evidence would be called to determine what marks might be expected when one braked such a car at a high speed. Collins in evidence denied that he had been in a hurry to get home that evening. When he passed over the railway crossing on Tawhiti Road he slowed to five miles an hour, because it was a bad spot when the trains were shunting there at that time of the afternoon. When approaching the Bum? Street corner he would be travelling at about 20 miles an hour. He saw the cyclist travelling slowly along in front of him. When he was about 30 feet ahead he started to waver across the road. He sounded his horn and put his foot on the reverse brake—not with the intention of pulling up his car then. He had no idea the cyclist was going to turn at the crossing. The cyclist gave no indication that he was going to turn. When

he saw the cyclist turn he put on the reverse lever harder and turned with him as quickly as he could. He felt a slight bump. NO SPEEDOMETER ON CAR. Cross-examined by Mr. North, Collins said that there was no speedometer on his car but he denied that his speed was excessive. There was another car ahead of him but it was well ahead. Mr. North: You admitted at the inquest that it was a skid mark for the full distance, did you not?—Yes. But I do not know that it was all a skid mark. Collins said he had no time to do anything but slip on the reverse pedal, so sudden was Leggett’s turn. He had pulled on to his wrong side of the road to pass the bicycle, not expecting it to turn. Albert Edward Thrush in evidence for the defence said that he saw the accident. He first became aware that something was wrong when he Jieard the car’s brakes screaming. He looked up and saw Leggett turning sharply in front of the car. He had no idea of what pace the car was going nor the of the bicycle. Leggett appeared to be cutting the corner sharply. When the impact occurred Leggett was thrown against the door of the car and fell on the asphalt face downwards. He did not see Leggett signal the turn, which was sudden. -He knew Leggett was hard of hearing and had sometimes seen him . riding on the footpath towards his hpipe? Cecil Miles, a motor mechanic in the employment of a Hawera garage, said he tested the brakes on Collins’ car the day after the accident and found them to be in good condition by a series of adequate tests. Newton Derby, manager of a garage at New Plymouth, said he knew Collins’ model of car well and gave expert evidence and expressed the opinion that if

the car. had been travelling very fast the skid mark would have been made by.the left hand rear wheel in making a right hand turn. Had the car been travelling fast it would have left the marks of the left hand rear and front wheels. Such a mark as indicated on the plan would only be made by such a car travelling at a slow speed. Under cross examination Derby admitted that the road surface and general circumstances might make it possible for the mark to have been made by a fast travelling car of the type, but he adhered to the general opinion given in. his evidence. .... On the resumption of the hearing last night Mr. Moss addressed the jury, stating that it was necessary to prove, if the plaintiff’s case was upheld, that Collins had been negligent and that the negligence had caused the accident. He submitted that the evidence showed that Collins was not negligent and that Leggett was, in making the sudden turn, not round into the street, but on the footpath. Reasonable care was all that was required of Collins. ’’What could Collins have done to offset Leggett’s extraordinary manoeuvre?” he asked. He submitted that the mark on the road was not a skid mark as stated by counsel for Mrs. Leggett, but was a mark .made by the car when in reverse. None of the material evidence indicated speed on the part of Collins. Mr. North, addressing for the plaintiff, reminded the jury that they were not trying a criminal charge, but the matter was one of grave importance to Mrs. Leggett and her son and daughter. Undoubtedly Collins had at least .120 feet to pull up or go back to the right side of the road. He had failed to do so. Evidence was conflicting, but he claimed that the preponderance of disinterested evidence overwhelmingly favoured Collins. Constable Lennon had stated definitely that the wheel mark was a skid

mark and nothing less. Robinson’s evidence was corroborative. Counsel addressed the jury for an hour and a-half after the resumption and the judge intimated at the conclusion of the addresses that he would postpone his summing up until 10 o’clock this morning. The jury was warned and discharged for the night.