SUPREME COURT.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 12734, 2 September 1919, Page 8

SUPREME COURT.

CIVIL SITTINGS. His Honor Mr Justice Herdman presided at the Supreme Court to-day. MOTOR COLLISION CASE. Stanley Williams, commercial traveller, of Christchurch (Mr Alpers, with him Mr A. T. Donnelly), claimed from Elizabeth Rutherford, widow, Amur! (Mr W. C- Macgregor, K.C., with him Mr J. S. Barrett), the sum of £IOOO general damages and £l2B 16s special damages in connection with injuries incui red in a collision between plaintiff’s motor-cycle and defendant’s motor-car which occurred at the corner of Richfield Street and Colombo Street on February 15, 1919 The case was heard before a special jury of twelve. Mr Phineas Selig was chosen foreman. In outlining the case for plaintiff Mr Donnelly stated that the motor-car at the time of the accident was being driven by a servant of defendant. It waa proceeding north along Colombo street, between the two inner lines of rails and behind a tramcar. Plaintiff was moving along Lichfield Street from the west, on his proper side, and intended to turn into Colombo Street. In eomuhance with the city regulations plaintiff prepared to make a wide sweep to the east side of Colombo Street. The tramcar had just moved forward and plaintiff after passing over the line saw the motor-car and pulled up. The driver ol the car evidently intended to turn into Lichfield Street, but took the corner (Mason and Struthers’s) sharply instead of making the wide sweep to the north side of Lichfield Street. When the air driver saw plaintiff he endea.vourca to null more to the right, but ran into plaintiff’s car. Plaintiff was thrown out and sustained a broken leg. He was taken to the Hospital and remained there from February 15 to July /o. ihree operations were performed n the leg, and one or two more rci . to he carriod The leg was nicely to remain permanently stiff. in his evidence plaintiff stated that he was a returned soldier. Before enlisting bo was a cabinetmaker, bnt since le ,rl laci becom(v a commercial traveller The accident occurred at abont I- 20 P-m on Saturday, February nit t'i S wan returning from West Melton. 1 lie radiator of the motor-car struct witness on the leg between the knee and ankle. He heard the driver of the car say “ You tried to turn mn,„r ra ? r fnst ' oIcI rcme.noered no more at the time. Witness saw the car driver subsequently th?nVhf J '» ■ t ? r T d to ° much to ‘‘Thi” ht ‘i m w!llch defendant replied. The only bloomer I made was in To teU yon the truth. I did not know where von came from; vou might, have left the Hospital temporarily on Angrot tioni: S ° ne trough four operaJiJ* Macgregor; Witness was not ndmga motor-cyeie of his own. It was a 7-J horse-power machine, and d heavy one. He had used it for eight or hut did not possess a certificate. He did country riding only as a rule, and merely passed through Sf + C i lt ' V w- reet f’.- I ? e . clld CoUntl Y riding for the Wmard lighting system,' and on the day of the accident was returning from duty. Witness passed in front of the tramcar, which he thought coramenced to move from the stop on the south side of the road at the moment that he crossed the tramline. He caught sight of the motor-car too late ]? continue on in Lichfield Street. Had the car dnver not turned sharply into Lichfield Street witness would have had a chance of passing the car near the gutter on the east side of Colombo street. Witness was on his second B ear and was travelling slowly. To Air Alpers: The incident was a matter of moments and as witness’s car ™ facing south when ho caught sight ot the motor-car he did the only thing possible, stopped. Had the motor-car also stopped the collision Would have been avoided, , Alfred Brown, an electric linesman, stated that he had worked among street traffic for many years. Previous to the accident he had never seen plaintiff. Witness was standing by the telegraph pole at Okey’s corner at the time of the accident, and had a clear view of Lichfild Street west and Colombo Street south. There was no traffic on the road. He saw a motor-cycle coming along Lichfield Street from the west, well to the left (the north) side of the street. A tram from the south stopped at Gee’s corner and a motor-car was coming behind, running near the eastern set of rails. The tram had just moved as the motor-cycle crossed about 16ft m front, making a good sweep, and with a speed of from six to eight miles an hour. The motor-cyclist, oi\ seeing the oar. pulled up. The driver of the motor was looking to the right, and when he saw the cycle he swerved to the right. The speed of the car was not great and the marks showed that the brakes were applied about Aft from the point of impact. At the moment of collision the motor-cycle was practically stopped and the car had very little momentum on. Continuing, witness said ho assisted plaintiff. The driver of the ear left his machine and said to plaintiff, “ You were gong too quickly, old chap.” Witness replied that neither was going too quickly, but that the motor-car was on its wrong side of the road. No horn was sounded by either cycle or car. To Air Alacgregor: The front of the motor-car struck the motor-cycle broadside, bitting the cyclist’s legs. To Air Alpers: In witness’s opinion the driver of the motor-car intended to turn into Lichfield Street, going east, and his eyes were diverted from the fairway in Colombo Street.' ‘ Charles H. Newton, medical practitioner, until recently attached to the orthopedic unit of the Christchurch Hospital, gave evidence as to the nature of plaintiff’s injuries. He considered it would be two years before treatment of the leg would cease. Evidence of a technical nature was given by Henry James Ranger, motor garage proprietor, mechanic and driver. This closed the evidence for the plaintiff. Air Alacgregor, in opening the case for the defence, said that defendant claimed that the accident was due to plaintiff’s negligence, and that the accident could have been avoided by reasonable care on his part. In crossing in front of a tramcar defendant had not exercised judgment, for thereby he had run into danger of which he was not aware but the existence of which was quite likely in the circumstances. Plaintiff had broken two city by-laws by his own admission, for he was driving a motor-cycle through the city without holding a license to drive, and ho crossed the intersection at about eight miles an hour when the limit was six miles. (Proceeding.)