DAMAGES AWARDED

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 73, Issue 427, 19 November 1930, Page 12

DAMAGES AWARDED

TOTAL OF £539 CAR DRIVER’S NEGLIGENCE. Judgment was delivered by Mr Justice Ostler in the Supreme Court, yesterday in the case in which Aliek George Galycr, by his guardian, Frank Galycr, sued Harriet Halligan, a married woman, of Wanganui, and Nancy Halligan for £39 6s lid special damages. and £750 general damages, as a result of a collision on August 15, 1929. between a bicycle the boy was riding and a car driven by Miss Halligan. His Honour awarded plaintiff £39 6s lid special damages, which were admitted, and £5OO general damages. Mr A. D. Brodie appeared for plaintiff and Mr L. Cohen for defendant. The sole remaining witness, Joyce Gage, a teacher at the Avenue School, said she taught. Standard 4 when the boy Galycr was in that class last year. He had a. slight, stammer in his speech. Once he started he could read fluently.

Air Cohen submitted that there was no evidence of driving too. fast, and there was positive evidence that the horn was sounded twice. Defendant kept a. proper lookout. She swerved under justification and there was no evidence of failing to keep the car under proper control. There was no evidence of breach of the motor regulations of the 90ft. rule, for Miss Halligal slowed down to 15 miles per hour. There was nothing improper in Afis< Halligan swerving to tho wrong side in an endeavour to try and avoid injury to the boy. The boy’s duty on the cycle was not to round the corner at more than six miles an hour. Had he done so and kept a lookout he could have stopped off the bicycle and avoided a collision. The boy’s duty also was to reduce his speed coming on to Somme Parade to enable him to observe all the points of possible danger. The greatest, menace to traffic in Wanganui. contended counsel, was young lads on cycles. His Honour’s Judgment. His Honour, in delivering judgment, said that the circumstances in the case enabled him to come to a clear conclu sion in the matter. He did not think the observation correct that when the boy emerged from the corner the car was as far away as 160 ft to 170 ft. That being so, if the car was not travelling at more than a moderate pace no accident would have happened, as there would have been ample time for the boy to get over on to the correct side of the road. The car must have been a great deal closer. He accepted the boy 's evidence that he looked out and saw the car. a natural thing for the boy to do. He was no fool and eleven years of age. He had seen the boy placed on the seat of the bicycle, and he was satisfied be could not very well sit on the cycle and ride with his head down, ‘if Miss Halligan were keeping a sharp lookout, as she ought to have done, at this blind corner, she would have seen the boy before he got so far round the corner. She should have seen him at lease five and ahalf car lengths away. He was satisfied also that the cyclist had reached his correct side of the road, and that the driver of the car had a reasonable opportunity to avoid the accident. She was not keeping a proper lookout. If her speed was only 15 miles an hour, she hail ample *ime to pull up on her right side and avoid the accident, She was 70ft. away when she first saw him and was travelling half as fast again as the cycle, and if she had stopped there would have still remained 25ft. between them. Miss Halligan did the worst thing, possible when the cyclist was some littlo dis tance out to swerve over to her wrong side. The evidence established the fact that Miss Halligan was travelling nt a much greater speed than 15 miles an hour. From the marks on the bitumen it was also evident that she applied her brakes. He did not think she was travelling at excessive or a dangerous speed. The evidence had been established that the bike did not run into tho car, but the car into the cvcle. otherwise the cyclo and the boy would not have been found on tho grass. The fact of their being found on tho grass shows that tho boy’s version was correct awd that conclusion was strikingly borne out by the marks on the oieycle. His Honour said he was not disposed to pay much attenion to an admission made by an injured patient in hospital to. a person on a mission of condolence. There was no evidence that the bike did skid. Ihe accident was caused solely by the negligence of Miss Halligan. In his Honour’s opinion there was no evidence ol contributory negligence on the pari of the boy. and plaintiff was entitled to the special damages claimed of £39 6s I Id. In regard to the general damages, the boy must have undergone a good deal ot‘ pain and suffering, and his Honour considered that as be could not come to Court again that he was entitled to reasonable damages. He then assessed the amount at £5OO. His Honour stated that he acquitted all witnesses from any conscious departure from the truth. He knew from experience how easy it was lor witnesses to get into their heads something that was wrong, and they would honestly believe that it,was true.

Air Brodie mentioned that the money was to bo placed with the Public Trustee for the benefit of the boy.