SUPREME COURT

Manawatu Standard, Volume LVII, Issue 199, 23 July 1937, Page 8

SUPREME COURT

COLLISION CLAIM. YOUNG WOMAN AS PLAINTIFF. By her guardian at -law, Chloris Henry Holland, a railway employee, of Palmerston North, Miss Jean Holland, of Palmerston North, to-day brought an action in the Supreme Court against John Hector Macdonald, an insurance agent, also of Palmerston North, claiming £lls 13s as the outcome of a collision between a cycle ridden by plaintiff and a motor cycle ridden by defendant on October 21 of last year. His Honour Mr Justice Ostler presided with a jury of four — Messrs 11. E. Harrison (foreman), W. W. Coutts, C. Barnes and W. G. Ingram.

Plaintiff, for whom Mr A. M. Ongley appeared, alleged that on or about October 21, 1936, defendant had so negligently, carelessly and unskilfully ridden a motor cycle in Cuba Street, at the intersection of George Street, that it had collided with plaintiff, then riding her cycle in Cuba Street.. Particulars of the alleged negligence were given as riding at an excessive speed, overtaking and passing within a distance of 30 feet before an intersection, failing to keep to the left as far as practicable, failing to keep a proper look-out for traffic, and failing to stop or steer clear of defendant. As a result, the claim stated, plaintiff had received injuries and had been confined in hospital for a month, had incurred medical expenses, had not been able to follow .her usual employment, and had endured much pain and suffering; also plaintiff’s clothing and bicycle had been damaged. Plaintiff claimed £27 9s as hospital expenses, £lB 17s medical expenses, £l6 5s for loss of earnings, £2 10s damage to clothing, 12s bicycle repairs and £SO general damages. Defendant (for whom Mr H. R. Cooper appeared) brought forward five defences. In the first he admitted the collision, but denied each of the particular allegations of negligence, and denied liability. In the next defence he alleged the collision had been entirely due to the negligence of plaintiff in that she had failed to give notice of her intention to turn to the right by extending her right arm and also in that she had failed to keep a proper look out for approaching traffic. In the third defence, contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff was alleged, if defendant be found negligent in any of the respects of which particular allegations were made. The fourth defence was that if defendant was proved negligent in any of the particular allegations, then plaintiff had the last opportunity of avoiding the collision. The fifth defence was that the collision had been an inevitable accident. Plaintiff gave evidence that she had been riding back to her place of employment in the Square from her borne in Pascal Street, after lunch. She had turned to go into George Street, holding out her hand to indicate her intention to turn, and after proceeding more than halfway across the street had been struck by the motorcycle. She had heard a horn, but it had been a long way back in Cuba Street and she had known she had time to cross the street. Cross-examined, witness said she always put out her arm at the corner. She- was sure she did so on the day of the collision. She looked round, but did not sec any overtaking trnffic. She heard a motor-cycle in the distance at the rear. „ , Evidence was given by A. Manly, assistant traffic inspector for the Palinerston North City Council, that ho had (been walking on the footpath of Cuba Street opposite George Street. He did not see the collision, as there was a line of parked cars obscuring his vision. There were marks on the road on the motor-cyclist’s wrong side of the road. Defendant had told him plaintiff had made “some sort of a signal’ and had then immediately commenced to turn just as defendant was about to pass plaintiff. Mr D. Mitchell, F.R.C.S., gave evidence as to liis attendance on plaintiff for the injuries she had suffered. Chloris Henry Holland gave evidence that defendant bad told him he had a man riding on the pillion seat of his motor-cycle. Nearing George Street be had “glanced up” and the road was clear. The next time lie had “glanced up” plaintiff had been in front, crossing to George Street with her right hand out. Defendant had told the police plaintiff bad had her hand out. This closed the case for plaintiff. THE DEFENCE.

Defendant gave evidence that there had been a pillion rider on his motorcycle Before the intersection (because of a car hacking on to the roadway) witness slowed down to about 15 miles an hour. Plaintiff gave no indication of turning. Witness then watched a car coming from George Street. Witness slowed down to give way to it. When he looked back the cyclist had reduced speed to a very slow pace and was six to eight feet away and a little to the left. Almost immediatelv she dropped her right hand from the‘handlebar. Witness guessed she was about to turn across his path which she did immediately. In an effort to avoid her witness threw the motor-cycle so hard to the right that the pillion rider was thrown to the roadway. Because of the footrest touching the roadway he was unable to turn sharply enough and then, in a further effort to avoid her. threw the motor-cycle on its side. The mo-tor-cycle was in that position on striking plaintiff’s machine. Witness had been on his correct side of the road until he swerved. Plaintiff did not look round at any time unless at the period when witness was looking at the car in George Street, coming into Cuba Street. The luncheon adjournment was taken at this stage.