SEQUEL TO COLLISION

Waikato Independent, Volume XXXI, Issue 2449, 7 March 1931, Page 5

SEQUEL TO COLLISION

£1668 CLAIMED BY INJURED CYCLIST. ACCIDENT IN VICTORIA STREET. CASE HEARD AT HAMILTON. (Our Own Reporter). HAMILTON, Friday. The sequel to a collision which created considerable interest in Cambridge about a year ago was the hearing of a claim for £1668 compensation which commenced at the Supreme Court, Hamilton, yesterday. It will be remembered tnat on Saturday, 15th February, 1930, a serious collision took place -in Victoria Street, just below the National Hotel, between a motor car drived oy Jack Young, motor mechanic, ot Cambridge, and a motor-cycle ridden by Charles Percival Stark, at that time of Bruntwood, who had a young lady passenger on the pillion seat. Both vehicles were damaged and .Stark received a broken leg. At the Hamilton Supreme Court yesterday, before Mr Smith, Stark claimed £1668 compensation from Young for negligent driving. Both parties concerned were covered by comprehensive insurance policies. Mr E. H. Northcroft, Auckland, and Mr T. A. Carroll, of Te Aroha, appear-, ed for the plaintiff, while defendant’s case was conducted by Mr W. J. King, of Hamilton. Plaintiff’s Case.

Charles Percival Stark, of Hamilton, said that at the time of tho accident he was a farm hand at Bruntwood. . He kept company with Miss Slicnnen, of Bruntwood, and used to attend dances at Cambridge. On the night of the accident he and Miss Shenncn left for Cambridge at about 7.45 p.m. It was desirable that they should arrive at the dance at about. 8 p.m. The road was wet, as there had been rain that day. The accident occurred at 8 p.m. The town clock was heard to strike just after it happened. Coming down the slope on the side of the Jubilee Gardens be had shut off the engine and was running against it at a speed of 10 m.p.h. The streets and motor lights would not. have been needed for drivers of vehicles to have seen each other. The car hit his cycle on the nghr side, breaking his right leg and damaging the motor cycle. He was thrown some distance away. He was attended t 0 and taken to the hospital. The wages received by defendant before the accident were 35/- a week and found. He had been promised a rise to £2 in August. To Mr King, plaintiff, said he dffi not have the proper, foot rests for the pillion rider in accordance with the rules. The car did not seem to deflect in its course coming up Victoria Street. It was his intention to go straight down this street. He did not think it dan-, serous to change his course. Young was coming up the centre of Victoria Street. . ■■ To His Honor: I stopped the machine within a foot.

Pillion Rider’s Evidence.

Violet Tyler. Shenncn, the pillion rider on the motor cycle at the time of tho accident,, said she was experienced in pillion riding. The roads were wet owing to rain having fallen earlier. Pace was slackened to a slow speed as they were going past the Jubilee Gardens. They were travelling on the left side of Victoria Street. The car when she saw it was about the middle of Victoria Street. The car seemed to be travelling very fast. To Mr King, Miss Shenncn gave details of the time of leaving home, speed travelled, corroborating the evidence given by plaintiff. Mary Everett, a married woman, was coining along Alpha Street with her sister and saw tho motor cycle immediately before the accident, kir Stark was lying a . distance away from the machine after the impact.

Kathleen Donovan, a sister of Mrs Everett, said they were coming' along Alpha Street, and saw a motor cycle coming from the Jubilee Gardens. It was dusk at' tho time, and the cycle was just turning when they saw it. Plaintiff was a little more than half way between the Garden corner, and Alpha Street. The cycle appeared to bo travelling into Alpha Street. Stark was travelling dead slow. To Mr King witness said she judged that the impact took place a little more than half-way across the road from the position Stark was lying. Plaintiff appeared to be pinned under the cycle. Frank Shenncn, brother of Miss V. Shenncn, said fie. accompanied plaintiff and his sister to Cambridge. Ho was travelling on his own cycle, in front of the others. Ho saw nothing of the accident but heard tho crash. Ho went to tho scene later. Stark was still lying on tlio, road about 10ft from the first pole -on the corner of Alpha Street.

Medical Evidence. Dr W. A. Joseph, of Hamilton, dc-

scribed the nature of the injury received by Stark at the time of the accident. About a year later he examined Stark’s leg again and found no improvement on that shown 20 weeks after the accident. After an operation he said there would be a chance of a union between the broken bones, which had not yet set. If an operation was not carried out defendant would have to decide between an amputation or remain for the rest of his life with the leg as it was. Dr R. S. A. Graham, of the staff of the Waikato Hospital, described the condition of Stark’s leg 'during his time in hospital and said as the leg was at present he would not be able to pursue his usual occupation. This concluded the evidence for the plaintiff. Defendant’s Case. Dr G. W. Gower said he saw no reason why a bone union should not be obtained through an operation. There would be a shortage of not more than an inch which would not result in Stark being unable to pursue his occupation. Jack Young, motor mechanic, of Cambridge, stated he had been driving for 13 years. On the night of the accident he was travelling from the post office to the pictures at the 'Town Hall. There were two other persons in the car. When he began to divert his course he saiv Stark about 100yds away. He put out his hand in the direction he proposed taking, namely, Lake Street. Defendant estimated his own speed at about 15 m.p.h. He carried on his course, considering he had the. right of the road and that the, motor cyclist would be able to see the lights and. see which direction he (defendant) was taking. The motor cycle came across the front of his car and. hit the righthand front mudguard and carried on. Immediately he saw the motor cycle coming in his path defendant applied his brakes' and stopped dead. The motor cycle after the impact was about 15yds down Victoria Street away from the car, the rider was about six feet, away from that point while the car was facing up Lake Street. Defendant did not deviate his course from the time he left his course in Victoria Street to the point of impact. He said the skid marks of the car could be seen nextmorning. He estimated that plaintiff would have been travelling at about 20 m.p.h. Defendant said lie could do nothing to avoid the collision. All he could do was to stop. He bore slightly to the left a second or two before the collision. There was nothing to prevent the motor cyclist from determining what direction defendant was taking. Jury to Visit Scene.

' To Mr Northcroft, defendant said he was about 40 or 50yds from the point of the impact when he saw the cyclist. At that point he put out his hand and was in the course of turning into Lake Street. Defendant did not pass Mr Shennen on his motor cycle while coming up Victoria Street. Cars were coming behind him and passed up Lake Street after the accident had taken place. It was too dark to see 100yds without the lights. He did not see ladies coming along Alpha Street. Defendant said he did not eontempato trouble when he went to fetch the traffic inspector.

To Mr King, defendant said when he altered his course he was 100yds from the motor cycle and he did not think such action would interfere with' the Tider’s plans. The accident jcould have tcSt'n avoided by Stark. The Court was adjourned till Monday morning. Before the hearing continues the jury will visit Cambridge and inspect the scene of the accident.