NEW TRIAL ASKED IN DAMAGES CASE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17780, 25 February 1926, Page 8

NEW TRIAL ASKED IN DAMAGES CASE.

A motion for a new trial in the case in which James Milne, a labourer, of Belfast, gained £209 2s 3d as damages from 11. Mottram, farmer, of Styx, as the result of a motor accident, was heard in the Supreme Court before Mr Justice Adams to-day. The action was based upon the contention that damages should not have been awarded, in view of the jury’s answers to the questions put to it, and that the verdict was against the weight of evidence. Mr Upham, for the defendant, supported the motion. Mr Thomas appeared for Milne, and opposed the motion.

When the case was heard, Milne claimed £225 general damages and £209 special damages. Plaintiff was riding a motor-cycle, and an employee of the defendant was driving a motor-truck. The plaintiff met with an accident, and it was claimed that the defendant’s employee did not signal that he was going to turn off the road and did not keep a proper look-out. The defence was that the plaintiff was failing to keep a proper look-out, that he failed to sound his horn, that he failed to manage his motor-cycle w’ith skill and attention, and that he attempted to pass another vehicle travelling in the same direction when opposite the opening of a side road. Mr Upham said that the action had been brought by the plaintiff in respect of an accident which took place on the North Road on May 30 last. A motor-lorry was driven by defendant northwards and was overtaken by a motor-cycle and sidecar driven bj r plaintiff. The plaintiff alleged that the accident was caused through the defendant failing to keep a proper look-out, and through defendant failing to signal that he was going to turn. There had also been an allegation of excessive speed, but this had been abandoned by the plaintiff’s solicitor. It was obvious that if the motor-lorry commenced to turn into Preston’s Road at a speed of eight miles an hour there would have been plenty of time for plaintiff to avoid the accident. The speed of the lorry had not been challenged. He submitted that the plaintiff put it that the two motor vehicles were travelling at the same speed at the same spot, and that the defendant turned suddenly in front of the plaintiff. This was contradicted by the evidence which stated that the speed of the motor-cycle was twenty-two miles per hour.

Mr Thomas supported the verdict of the jury lie urged that the driver of the motor-lorry had been negligent, basing his contentions upon extracts from the evidence.

Mr Thomas pointed out the discrepancies between the evidence of the. defendant and of the witnesses for the defence, and dealt with the legal aspects of the case. (Proceeding.)