LOSS OF A LEG.

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXVI, Issue 20232, 16 February 1934, Page 7

LOSS OF A LEG.

Woman’s Claim Against City Council. SEQUEL TO COLLISION. The hearing was continued before his Honor Mr Justice Johnston and a jury of twelve in the Supreme Court to-day of the claim for £1607 14s 9d brought by Ethel Mary Reeve, widow, of Springfield Road (Mr Sargent) against the Christchurch City Council (Mr Thomas, with him Mr Bowie). The claim arose from-an accident on Edgeware Road on September 7 last, when a collision occurred -between a bicycle ridden by the plaintiff and a motorlorry driven by a council employee. As the result of the accident the plaintiff lost a leg. She alleged negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry. Evidence of Truck Driver. After the “ Star ” went to press yesterday, Alfred Edward Clark, the driver of the truck, gave evidence for the defence. He said his speed was about eight miles per hour. He signalled to the plaintiff, whom he saw approaching on her bicycle on his left, that he was going to turn into the right-of-way leading to St Albans baths. He gave his attention to his driving, and when next he noticed the woman she was about six feet away. He applied his brakes, but could not avert the accident. John Bruorton, a city traffic inspector, who gave evidence yesterday as to measuring the brake-marks, said this morning that he did not know of complaints regarding the right-of-way. In reply to Mr Sargent, witness said he had advised that a barrier should be placed at the entrance to the right-of-way. The City Council trucks were kept in proper order. Hugh Edwin Kennett, a garage proprietor, who had seen the tests carried out at the spot where the accident occurred, corroborated the evidence in this respect of the previous witness. The signal that the driver of the truck had given was the only correct signal that could be given. The evidence of a police constable, who examined the bicycle after the accident, was that the brakes of the machine were faulty. Addresses by Counsel. Addressing the jury, Mr Thomas said that unless negligence was proved the. plaintiff’s case failed. It could not be suggested that the driver of the lorry failed to keep a proper look-out. Mr Sargent said it was the duty of the truck driver, having seen the cyclist, to see that he did not run over her. He submitted that the truck driver was the sole cause of the accident. His Honor, in summing up, pointed out that the accident must have been due to a lack of care on the part of somebody. He dealt in some detail with contributory negligence, and said the jury had to be satisfied that the driver of the truck had signalled clear, ly. The fact that a bicycle was so much more mobile than a truck imposed duties on the part of the cyclist. It was her duty to be alert. The jury retired at the luncheon adjournment. (Proceeding.)