"OFFSIDE" MOTOR ROLE.

Auckland Star, Volume LX, Issue 182, 3 August 1929, Page 10

"OFFSIDE" MOTOR ROLE.

COMMON LAW SUPERSEDED ? QUESTION OF NEGLIGENCE; IMPORTANT- LEGAL ARGUMENT.; (By Telegraph.—Press Association.) ■j PALMERSTON NORTH,-: this day:. During the hearing of a Supreme Court case, a claim' for damages arising from •injuries received in a motor car collision at a road intersection, counsel for defendant addressed the judge at length on the' obligations of drivers at intersections and quoted a number of authorities dealing ,with their duties. Counsel said' that ajl judicial expressions, dealt with the higher duty resting on a motorist proceeding from a subsi"diary to a main road. The offside rule should not be allowed to detract from the imperative duties laid down in previous caises. Unless people were forced to observe care in emerging on to the main road's there would very likely be fatal accidents. It was important that : alt regulations should be placed in their true perspective. His Honor: Are you pressing this ease as of veiy great importance? Counsel: Of very great importance to magistrates, who want a direction. Counsel cited numerous authorities in support of his contention that no rule affected the common law of liability laid dowy and insisted upon by judges, that on entering.a road a motorist had to "feel his way in,'" eo'that he could stop "dead" if necessary.. Counsel contended nothing should induce the Court to depart' from that' view. Counsel for plaintiff submitted that, the offside rule was a statutory one, ' 'taking the place of the old regulations. If a man did observe - the offside rule it was no excuse for negligence, and he was still" hound to exercise every pre* caution. A breach of a statutory regulation of that natnre was prima facie evidence 'of negligence,, and had to be disproved. •• He stated that if the common law differed from the regulations on traffic rules at intersections an alteration was necessary. Decision was reserved.