COUNCIL SUED.

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXVI, Issue 20231, 15 February 1934, Page 9

COUNCIL SUED.

Injured Woman Claims £1607. COLLISION WITH LORRY. The Christchurch City Council and citizens of Christchurch were the defendants in a Supreme Court action heard tc-dav, in which a widow claimed £1607 14s 9d damages as a sequel to an accident on Edgeware Road on September 7, when a collision occurred between plaintiff’s bicycle and a motor-lorry allegedly under the control of a council employee engaged on council business. Plaintiff was Ethel Mary Reeve, widow, of Springfield Road. Christchurch (Mr Sargent), and the defendants were listed as the Mayor, councillors and citizens of Christchurch. Mr Thomas, and with him Mr Bowie, appeared for the defendants. Statement of Claim. The statement of claim set out that cn September 7, 1933, plaintiff was riding a bicycle in an easterly direction along Edgeware Road. When she reached the right-of-way entrance to the City Council yard, a motor-lorry, going west along Edgeware Road and then turning into the right-of-way, was so negligently driven that it collided with plaintiff’s bicycle, causing plaintiff severe pain, injury, expense and loss. The lorry was driven by Albert Edward Clark, the authorised agent of the defendant.

The claim alleged that the motorlorry was so constructed as to prevent the driver from ha\'ing a sufficient view of traffic in front and °n either side, and it was submitted that in having the lorry so constructed defendants were negligent. The negligence alleged against the lorry driver came under the following heads:—(a) Failing to keep a proper look-out for other traffic; (b) driving a lorry so constructed that his vision was obscured; (c) failing to keep the lorry under proper control, in that he drove at a speed dangerous in the circumstances; (d) failing to give due warning of his intention of turning into the right-of-way; (e) failing to avoid a collision by not slowing down o. stopping when he had an opportunity of doing so.

Plaintiff claimed £1607 14s 9d (general damages £ISOO, plus special damages for medical attention and hospital fees, dentist’s fees, loss of earnings for twenty-two weeks, and wages paid to domestic help), together with costs and such other relief as the Court might deem fit.

The defence consisted of a general denial, together with an allegation of contributory negligence, on the grounds that plaintiff (a) failed to keep a proper look-out; (b) failed to stop her bicycle before a collision occurred; (c) failed to reduce speed; (d) failed to pass behind the lorry; and (e) rode a bicycle that was in a defective mechanical condition. Leg Amputated. Mr Sargent said that as the result of the accident the plaintiff had to have a leg amputated. The accident happened at 11.30 in the morning, but there were no eye-witnesses. Counsel described the locality of the accident. The entrance to the council yard was on the north side of Edgeware Road, just west of the intersection of Colombo Street. There was no footpath on that side of the road. Plaintiff unfortunately did not know that lorries were in the habit of turning into the yard. The lorry had a load of shingle, which would bring its total weight up to about nine tons. It had a left-hand drive, a style prohibited in the case of motor vehicles registered after 1928. It/was not contended that the vehicle had not been registered prior to 1928. Moreover, the superstructure was of an out-of-date type and did not allow a proper view. The driving of such a vehicle under such conditions called for particular care. Through losing her leg, plaintiff had to forego the work with which she had supplemented her meagre income. It meant a definite decrease in her earning capability. Plaintiff’s Evidence. In evidence, Ethel Mary Reeve, the plaintiff, said that her bicycle had been in good oi*der. On September 7 she was riding east along Edgeware Road, on her correct side. When approaching the right-of-way she saw a motorlorry, which appeared to be going on down Edgeware Road to the west. It took the crown of the road, as most traffic did, and plaintiff hugged the channel to give it plenty of room. “ Next thing, it was right in front of me,” witness continued. She had not expected the lorry to turn. When she saw the lorry in front of her she had no chance to do anything. The front wheel of the truck struck the bicycle. Witness thought she was dragged by the lorry’s back wheel, though it did not actually go over her. There were two other entrances to the bath site, properly constructed, one in Dover Street and one in Trafalgar Street. There was no warning of the approach of the truck. Prior to the accident she had earned frcm £1 to 30s weekly at cleaning work in city buildings, and at domestic employment. The loss of her leg had prevented her working, and she also had to employ help in the house.

Cross-examined by Mr Thomas, witness said she was sure the driver of the lorry had not signalled his intention to turn. She did not remember applying her brake, but would have done so, she considered. The lorry driver applied his brakes very promptly after the accident.

William Alfred Britten, of the Butler Cycle Works, said that the front brake on plaintiff’s cycle was in good order. Dr L. A. Will gave evidence regarding plaintiff’s injuries, and said that amputation was essential.

George Adams Campbell, motor body builder, said the lorry had a left-hand drive and the windscreen had a centre pillar as well as pillars at the side. That would have been liable to obscure the driver’s vision.

The Rev J. F Feron, vicar of St Matthew’s Church, said that he saw the truck pass along Caledonian Road, but did not observe the accident, lie heard the screams and assisted Mrs Reeve, who had been dragged about three feet.

“ There are a few places in St Albans where we expect a few deaths, and that is one of them,” said witness.

Richard Alexander Snelgrove. manager of the Dominion Assessors of New Zealand, gave evidence regarding the construction of the cabin of the truck.