RULE OF ROAD.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIV, Issue 259, 2 November 1933, Page 8

RULE OF ROAD.

QUESTION IN COURT.

SEQUEL TO COLLISION.

MOTOR CYCLIST CLAIMS £779,

A collision between a motor cycle and a motor car at the intersection of King's Drive and *he road which leads off it to the vehicular ferry on January 30, 1933. had a sequel in the Supreme Court this morning, when Reginald A. Gotobed, electrician, of Ponsonby, claimed damages of nearly £800 from Charles Waters, company manager, of Auckland, driver of the car. The claim was heard before Mr. Justice Smith and a jury. Mr. Holmden appeared for plaintiff and Mr. Richmond for defendant. Mr. Holmden said that tlie collision occurred on a Takapuna race day, when there was a queue of cars lined up right down the ferry road. Plaintiff was driving along King's Drive bound for Mission Bay, and his son was pillion riding. He would say his speed was between 15 and 20 miles an hour. The parked cars waiting.to go on the vehicular ferry would to some extent obscure the view of a car coining out of the ferry road. When plaintiff first observed defendant's car, it was proceeding slowly, and plaintiff took this as an invitation to come on. "Had the Right of Way." It would be submitted that plaintiff had tlie r'ght of way, as lie was on the right of defendant. Knowing that it was the duty of defendant to stop, plaintiff proceeded on his course, but, to his dismay, just as he was coming on to the middle of the intersection, the car seemed to hurry on, and the collision occurred. Both plaintiff and liis son were injured, the former very seriously. Counsel contended that defendant was negligent in coming on as ho did, and that the obligation to stop was defendant's, as lie did not have tho right of way. Defendant had paid to plaintiff's son, the pillion rider, the sum of £34 2/, which, counsel submitted, was an admission of his negligence.-

Effect of Injuries. The injuries sustained by plaintiff, who was taken to the hospital in an unconscious condition, were described by counsel, who stated that liis capacity for continuing his avocation as an electrician had been seriously impaired. Certain classes of work he would never be able to undertake again. Plaintiff had to employ snother electrician to carry on contracts into which he had entered, which involved expense, but inevitable loss of business resulted from plaintiff's illness. Plaintiff claimed £47 5/ hospital and medical expenses, and damages to his cycle, tlio amount of which has been admitted, and also the following: — Wages- paid to electrician, £130 10/; loss of business, £100; general damages, £500; travelling expenses to and from the hospital, £1 10/; total, £779 5/. Plaintiff in evidence said lie sustained a fractured shoulder, collarbone and ankle. He described the accident as counsel had done, and was then submitted to cross-examination by Mr. Richmond as to the speed at which he was travelling and the possibility of the collision being avoided if he had applied his brakes earlier or swerved.

Evidence was called in support of the claim. Defendant's Case. "Substantially '' the ' plaintiff's case rests on what he contends to be the law at an intersection, that a vehicle must give way to another approaching on its right," said Mr. Richmond, in opening defendant's case. The place at which this, collision occurred was different from an ordinary intersection, in that it was a case of one road joining another, and not cutting right across. . Consequently it had to be anticipated that every vehicle coming out was going to take a turn. The important thing was that it was a blind corner because of the motor cars parked from the vehicular ferry right round into King's Drive. It had been laid down by the Court of Appeal that the rule that traffic coming out must give way'was modified when tlie person coming out could not see the road. Both roads in this case were narrowed by at least 7ft by the parked cars, which hid the view of both plaintiff and defendant. "There was no breach of the righthand rule until a point was reached where visibility was possible," added Mr. Richmond. "Defendant advanced just far enough to see the road, and evidence will be called to show that he was just Oft on the concrete when he applied his brakes, and the car was stopped in another Oft." Counsel added that there was another rule under the Motor Regulations which provided for a maximum speed of 15 miles an hour for a vehicle approaching nn intersection where the visibility was less than 90ft. There was no visibility in this case for the purpose of that rule, and plaintiff, having admitted that he was travelling at over 15 miles an hour, was negligent. The rule was just as important as the right-hand rule, and more so in the case of a motor cycle, which could not be stopped as quickly as a motor car. (Proceeding.)