MOTOR CARS COLLIDE.

Auckland Star, Volume LIV, Issue 214, 7 September 1923, Page 7

MOTOR CARS COLLIDE.

AT NIXON'S MONUMENT. CLAIM FOR £124 ALLOWED. In a claim for damages arising out of a collision between two motor cars at the intersection of the Great South R.oad and Mangere Road, near Nixon's Monument, on February 4 last, judgment -was delivered by Mr. W. R. McKean, S.M., in the Magistrate's Cfflrt. The plaintiff was W. J. Castles, farmer, of Wiri. and the defendant another farmer, J. Crawford, of Mangere. In claiming a total sum of £124, which included repairs £49, and £75 compensation for loss and depreciation, plaintiff alleged that the collision was caused by defendant's negligent driving. Defendant counterclaimed for £29, and he alleged negligent driving on the part of the plaintiff. Traversing the evidence given at the hearing, the Magistrate said that the two roads converged at Nixon's Monument and formed an acute angle. The defendant turned at the moment into Great South Road, intending to proceed in the opposite direction to that in which the plaintiff was travelling. There was a high hedge on each road, and neither party -was able to see the other till the defendant had turned into the Great South Road. It was not alleged that the defendant was driving fast, but there was a conflict of evidence as to whether defendant turned on Ilia proper side of the road at the Monument. Plaintiff kept his proper position for a few yards after seeing the defendant, and then, when 22ft from defendant's car, thinking a head-on collision was imminent, swerved sharply towards the opposite side of the road. Defendant at the samp time swerved to his left and accelerated his speed, the cars colliding: near the centre of the road, and the impact caused plaintiff's car to skid sideways to the extent of two feet. Defendant was undoubtedly in fault, and must pay for the damages caused by his nejrligence. The damages claimed were proved except for a small amount claimed for petrol. With regard to depreciation, there was always a difficulty in assessing damages, but. in the present case, said the Magistrate, defendant, whose car suffered only minor injuries, alleged that the value of the car had depreciated to the extent of the amount claimed livplaintiff. He thought that plaintiff's claim should be allowed. Judgment was for plaintiff for the full amount, with costA. Judgment was also fur plaint ilf on the counter-claim. At tin- hearing plaintiff was rppr<--sented by Mr. Bartleet. while Mr. Holmden apfxuireii for the defendant.