STREET COLLISION.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17142, 11 September 1923, Page 10

STREET COLLISION.

SUPREME COURT ACTION. A claim for £471 3s damages, arising out of an accident in Trafalgar Street, North St Albans, about 6 a.m. on December 8 last, was heard ir? the Supreme Court yesterday, before Mr Justice Reed and a jury of four. Edgar Barrett, Christchurch, engineer, was the plaintiff, and Hardie and Thomson, Chrischurch. timber merchants, were the defendants. Barrett, who is employed as an engineer l>y Bristow and Co., pet out in his statement of claim that when he was riding his motor-cycle, with a side-car attached. along Trafalgar Street, an employee of defendants was driving horses belonging to them in the opposite direction, and one of the horses collided with the motor-cycle, knocked Barrett off, and severely kicked him. It was alleged that the horses were xmhaltered, that they got out of control and galloped in a. way unsafe for the general public, and that defendants knew that tbo horses had been driven along a road in a dangerous manner previously. Barrett suffered a comminuted fracture of the left shoulder-blade, and was unable to resume work until April 7 last. He also stated that he still suffered much pain, which was aggravated bv the fact that he had an artificial right leg. tho strap to which must pass over his left shoulder. He claimed £3OO general damages and £l7l 3s special damages, made up as follow:—Wages, seventeen weeks at £6 os a week, less £ls paid by defendants. £9l ss; medical expenses, £44 0s 6d; depreciation to machine, £25; repairs to machine, £5; damage to suit and cost of shaving, £5 17s 6dThe defence was a general denial of allegations in the statement of claim. As an alternative- defence, it was set out that if a horse belonging to defendants collided with Barrett it was not the ordinary nature of the horse to collide in that way. Mr M. J. Gresson, with him Mr E. W. White, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr C. S. Thomas for the defendants. Martha Milne, dressmaker, to Mr White, said that the horses usually passed her shop at a fairly full trot. Robert 1\ Gawlor. storekeeper, gave evidence for plaintiff. Mr Thomas moved for a nonsuit on the ground that plaintiff’s case had not disclosed any cause of action. He said that there was no evidence of neglige ice that would allow a case to go to the- jury. If a man kept a fierce animal, like a lion or a tiger, lie kept it at his peril. It was different with horses. Defendants could bo bold liable for only such damages as fairly could be considered the immediate consequence of their alleged negligence. There was not sufficient proximate connection between the alleged negligence of defendants and the damages to) plaintiff to render defendants liable. His Honor reserved leave to Mr Thomas to move for a nonsuit. William Thomson, managing director of Hardie and Thomson, called by Mr Thomas, said that the horses had been driven for ten years in the same way as they were driven on the day of the accident. He had received no cornplaints of them. After the accident, they were put on halters. There was practically no traffic on the road in the morning. He had visited Barrett, sympathised with him, and said that he would send a few pounds to help him along. He made him three gifts of £5 each. He found that Barrett was getting quite unreasonable, and was trying to place the blame on defendants. Witness did not admit to Mr Deighton that witness was liable. To Mr Gresson : The accident was caused by Barrett not keeping a proper look-out. Arthur George Vincent, who drove the horses, denied several statements by Barrett and Strong. Dr P. S. Foster gave evidence for defendants, and further bearing of the case was adjourned till 10.30 a.m. next day.