DAMAGES CLAIM FAILS

Press, Volume LXXXVII, Issue 26357, 27 February 1951, Page 5

DAMAGES CLAIM FAILS

RAILWAY CROSSING ACCIDENT

A jury in the Supreme Court yesterday returned a verdict in favour of the Crown in a case in which Joseph Edward Williams, a taxi driver, claimed £526 as damages as the result of a collision between the taxi he was driving and a railway engine on the Grove street crossing on June 26, 1950. Mr Justice Northcroft entered judgment for the Crown, with costs. ‘ Mr E. S. Bowie, and with him Mr E. B. E. Taylor, appeared for Williams. Mr A. W. Brown, and with him Mr P. T. Mahon appeared for the Crown.’ Mr Taylor, in his opening address to the jury, said the action was one in which the suppliant was suing the Crown by way of petition of right. That was the form such an action took, but it was actually the same as . a ordinary civil claim. The suppliant alleged that the accident was due to the negligence of servants of the Railways Department. Evidence Called

Joseph Edward Williams, a taxi driver, said that, as he approached the railway crossing at Grove street, he noticed there was shunting going on and he took his foot from the accelerator preparatory to stopping. He slowed to a walking pace some distance from the crossing. He saw no one on the crossing at this stage, but as he approached, he saw two men standing on the continuation of the footpath of Grove street One of these men seemed to be leaning on a stop sign, the top of which was under his arm. Both men were holding red lights. When one of them found witness was stopping he waved the red light from side to side for witness to go on. This man resumed his conversation with the other man and witness definitely took it to be a sign for him to go on. He put his taxi ipto second gear and began to cross at about 10 to 14 miles an hour. As he passed the two men no attempt was made to stop him. The window on the driver’s side of the taxi was open. He was passing a rake of empty trucks when he saw a railway engine and, just as he saw the engine, it hit his taxi. The engine was travelling very slowly. No whistle was blown. It had happened very frequently, in the course of shunting operations, that he had been waved over a crossing by red lights. Four other witnesses gave evidence for the plaintiff. Mr Brown moved either for a nonsuit or for judgment for the respondent on the grounds that there was no evidence of any negligence on the part of any employee of the Railways Department. His Honour said it would be inconvenient to withdraw the case from the jury but he would reserve consideration of the matters raised by Mr Brown. Case for Crown Mr Mahon then outlined the respondent’s case to the jury. The Crown case was that every endeavour was made to see that the crossing was properly guarded and nothing more could have been done than was done to prevent the accident. g Edward O’Riley Tohill, a railway ■crossing keeper, said he was in charge fcf. the Grove street crossing on the Inlght of June 26. Shunting operations 'were going on about 8 p.m. A rake of trucks was left half way across the crossing while the engine went back for more trucks. Witness stayed on the crossing and had a stop sign and a red torch. The engine was coming from what was known as the paddock on to the crossing at about walking pace. Witness held up his stop sign and pointed his red torch in the direction of the taxi. When he saw the taxi was not stopping he raised his torch and moved it across to attract the attention'of the taxi driver. The taxi came on and witness had to step out of its way. The taxi went on past the trucks and was struck by the engine. The taxi was severely damaged and traffic over the crossing was held up for more than an hour. Thomas William Carroll, a traffic assistant employed by the Railways Department gave supporting evidence. Counsel then addressed the jury and his Honour summed up. Issues were put to the jury in which they were asked: were the servants of the respondent negligent, if so, in what respect? Was the suppliant negligent, if so in what respect? The jury was also asked to apportion the negligence if they found both parties negligent. The jury retired at 4.15 p.m. and returned at 5 p.m. They answered “No" to the first question, so no further answers were necessary. Mf Brown moved for judgment for the respondent and Mr Bowie said he co’>ld not oppose the motion. His Honour accordingly entered judgment for the Crown, with costs.