LEVEL CROSSING MISHAP.

Auckland Star, Volume XLIV, Issue 196, 18 August 1913, Page 6

LEVEL CROSSING MISHAP.

I a — RAILWAY DEPARTMENT BLAMED. -JURY UPHOLD ALLEGATION OF NEGLECT. FULL DAMAGES AWARDED. After a hearing extending over four days, the action brought by Dudley Briice Hill against the New Zealand Railway Department to recover the sum of £1,00(1 us compensation in reispet-t to a collision between claimant's motor I car anil a. train on the Kaukapakapa | railway level crossing in January last ! was concluded al the Auckland Supreme I Court .-ii Saturday. Mr. .1. 11. Reed, IK.C, ;ir..l Mr. Murdoch (Napier) api pea rod for ihe claimant, and the Hon. !j. A. iolc. K.C. wiiii Mr. Selwyn Mays, i for the ilit'ihvav Department. ! Counsel*' addresses lo tlie jury occiijpit'd :i pniTio- of the forenoon and afternoon, nii.i Mr. .In-tire Cooper tcok two hour.- i:i re. ii wiii. the evidence relative !to tr," (ii.- L •*■:.— of fact fr.iinpil for the IJiiri- io .irsver. i. i'e ; ng agreed that important legal points involved should be I hold over for subsequent argument. | \flcr .: two hours' rrtirement. tht | jury brought in n vertlii-t in favour "i |the claimant for (he i'::ll amount j claimed, answering the .seventeen issues I -ii'iniiHed ;'..•• fo"'iws: — | Al the lime of the accident were there I rca.'oualily suii'ui.at indie ition* to giNe i .-■ i-trange,- travelling on ih:> highway ■from Helensville wa-tiing of ihe: : prcv'un;! y o l ' the level ending?— So. j V. :;.-■ the ;i-e ft' the crtssing more than ! mluiiiri'v dangerous to a str:m_er? — ! Yes. I r ' l!i i.li'.ijns ritirruun-ling the ap- | pi-i-i... lies ii.i the crossing at the time ot : the .Keblen; constitute a danger to per-|-.his i.mi;" illy lining the highway with j ri-e.-ioniible cur anil caution? —Yes. I At I'.ir I'lir.e of the accident iv_ the j null' — board on tlie eastern side of the |cro--.= in_ in s.iclt «v position as to give | a slr.ingei approaching with reasonable care along the highway ,rom Helensville Isuliiiii'ir, n-.irnin. of the level crossing? |-No. I I- il t'e universal am! well-known jeu-ttitii of I!--:■ Hallway Department to I place ;■: ail level i ros-ing., on public .highway.! niiti.'c-bo.irils having characteristic le.it:i:,'s .■- Vas. | Was tlie lower portion (including th; jt-iiui'ler itoiiiiii of tlie notice on the I western ..Me of the et*cis»ing obscured by ! bushes -ii as to ruii it of its ehararterisjtir appearance?-Ves. Was the plaintifr thereby misled?— Yes. Would :• stranger approaching with leaoonab!'' fare along the highway from Helensville be liable to be thereby misled?—Ves. Could ih" Rriilway Department, by exercising revs .n.iblc care, have placed and maintained notice-boards in a position and condition to afford reasonable notice to person- travelling from Helensville on the said highway of the proximity of tlie said cro*.tn.? —Yes. Did tlie Railway Department fail to so place and maintain ihe notice-board at the said crossing?—Ves. If yes. was tills the proximate cause of the accident"? —Yes. Was the pi linlilf exercising reasonable care in driving his motor-car along the saiil high way?— Yes. Wac the accident due to tbe want of any reasonable cure or caution on the part of thr plaintiff?— No. Could the plaintiff, by the exercise of reasonable rare and caution, have avoided the accident? —No. Did the plaint iff know, or ought the plaintiff to have known, of the proximity of the railway?— No. Could the plaintiff have ascertained by reasonable inquiry the locality of the crossing? — No. as in the circumstances thus w:n- not necessary. What damages did the plaintiff sustain by reason of the collision of the 'motor ear with the engine?— The full amount claimed. His Honor remarked that he was prepared to decide ihe legal points after argument, hut suggested the advisability of moving the case to the Court of Appeal. Argument on Mr. Tolo_ motion for a non-suit and judgment, for respondents was accordingly reserved for the Court of Appeal.