DAMAGES AWARDED.

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXVI, Issue 20233, 17 February 1934, Page 32 (Supplement)

DAMAGES AWARDED.

Action Against City Council. NEGLIGENCE ALLEGED. The hearing was continued before his Honor Mr Justice Johnston and a jury i of twelve in the Supreme Court vester- 1 day of the claim for £1607 14s 9d i brought by Ethel Mary Reeve, widow, , of Springfield Road (Mr Sargent) against the Christchurch City Council (Mr j 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. The jury found in favour of the plaintiff and awarded £750 general damages and £92 14s 9d special damages. Jury’s Finding. The jury, after a retirement, returned to Court with the following answers to the questions asked;— 1. —Was the defendant’s driver negligent: (a) In failing to keep a proper look out for other traffic on the highway?—Yes. (b) In driving a motor-lorry so constructed as to prevent the driver thereof from having a sufficient view of traffic in front of and on either side of such motor-lorry? Yes. (c) In failing to keep the said motorlorry under proper control in that he drove the motor-lorry at a speed that, in the circumstances, was dangerous?—No. (d) In failing to give due warning of his intention to turn into the right-of-way,—No. (e) In failing to avoid a collision when he had the opportunity of doing so by not slowing down and/or stopping when a collision was imminent?—Yes. 2. —Was the plaintiff negligent: (a) In failing to keep a proper look out for other traffic on Edgeware Road?—No. (b) In failing to stop her bicycle before a collision occurred with the defendant’s motor-lorry?—No. (c) In failing to reduce her speed? No. (d) In failing to pass behind the defendant’s motor-lorry?—No. (e) In riding a bicycle in a defective mechanical condition?—No. 3. —lf you find that both were negligent, could either of them, up to the last moment, have avoided the accident by the exercise of ordinary care?—Not answered. 4. —lf “Yes,” which one?—Not answered. 5. —Assess the damages to the plaintiff irrespective of your answers to the above questions.—General damages £750, special damages £92 14s 9d. In addition the jury awarded 15s per week for domestic help and £1 per week for loss of earnings during plaintiff’s period of incapacity. The jury added that in its opinion the cabin of the truck should be reconstructed so as to provide an unobstructed view for the driver. On the application of Mr Sargent judgment was entered for plaintiff with costs on the highest scale as on a claim for £842. An application by Mr Thomas that all rights be reserved for fourteen days was granted.