Supreme Court CLAIM AFTER FATAL ROAD ACCIDENT

Press, Volume CI, Issue 29849, 15 June 1962, Page 13

Supreme Court CLAIM AFTER FATAL ROAD ACCIDENT

The hearing of a claim for £4451 19s 4d damages from the Attorney-General as a result of a fatal accident involving a Post Office truck began before a Supreme Court jury yesterday.

The trustees of the estate of Leonard James Hoglund. a storekeeper, of Springfield —Ernest Thomas Layburn, a solicitor, and Stanley Edward Field, an accountant (Mr A. D. Holland)—are suing on behalf of Hoglund’s widow, Edith Hoglund. They claim £4OOO general damages and £451 19s 4d special damages from the Attorney-General (Mr R. P. Thompson, with him Mr C. B. Atkinson). They say that a Post Office employee caused an accident in which Hoglund was killed.

The Attorney - General counter-claims £lB6 9s 8d for repairs to the Post Office truck.

Mr Holland said that Hoglund was killed when his van and the Post Office truck collided outside Hoglund’s general store on the Main West road at Springfield at midday on June 21. The trustees claimed that the accident was caused by the negligence of the lineman driving the truck in failing to stop when he saw the van pulling out to turn in the road, failing to slow after passing a limited speed zone sign when approaching Springfield, driving at an excessive speed, failing to keep a proper look-out, and failing to keep far enough to the left.

“Room To Pass” An eye-witness would say there was plenty of room for the truck to pass on either side of Hoglund’s van. The plaintiffs claimed that if the truck had slowed it could have stopped or steered clear. Mr Holland said he would agree With the view that Hoglund was asking for trouble in going out across a main road, but the evidence would be that the truck was not in sight when Hoglund got into his van. Although Hoglund did not signal his intentions, a signal would have made no difference because the truck was not then in sight. Hoglund was entitled to believe that vehicles approaching around the bend would be going slowly enough to avoid his van. Hoglund was 57 and his wife 56 at the time of the accident. Mrs Hoglund. had left her husband less than a year before the accident, and he was paying her £6 10s a week in maintenance. At the time, she was seeking a maintenance order for £lO a week. Hoglund’s average net income over the preceding five years was £1155 a year, and his expectation of life was 18 1-3 years, compared with 22 years for his wife.

Pet Lonestar Amelia Godbaz, a married woman, of Springfield, said she saw Hoglund get into his van outside his store. Hoglund looked in his rear-vision mirror before he drove off. As he drove off the truck approached from the bend in the main road to the east. She did not know how far Hoglund’s van had gone when she saw the truck. Hoglund was going west and climbing towards the crown of the road. When the vehicles collided Hoglund’s van was at the crown of the road and the truck was further to the left. The left side of the truck hit the right front of the van near the driver’s door. There was room for the truck to pass to the left or right of the van. The witness said that a southerly wind was blowing at the time, and it was raining.

To Mr Thompson, the witness said that Hoglund was accelerating, but was not making his turn quickly. Truck Driver’s Evidence For the defence, Leslie Alexander Beveridge, a Post Office linesman, of Darfield, said he was driving a utility van from Darfield to repair toll lines at Cnaigieburn when She accident occurred. He slowed to a little more than 30 miles an hour as he approached the bend before Springfield, between a limited speed zone sign and a bridge. As he turned the bend he saw a parked van . outside Hoglund’s store. As he neared the Post Office the van suddenly turned out at right angles to the road without any signal. "I veered over the white line in an attempt to avoid a collision,” said the witness. “I found I couldn’t avoid a collision and I carried on to my incorrect side of thg road. When the collision occurred the front of the van was across the white line and my truck was on my wrong side of the white line.” The witness said he braked as soon as he saw the van move. Hoglund did not slacken speed. To Mr Holland, the witness skid he had no chance to get around the van because it moved out so suddenly All he could do was veer to the right. To the best of his knowledge, he immediately applied bis brakes as hard as he could. He could not explain the fact that his truck went 130 ft or so after the collision, other than because his brakes were’ not working. Re-examined by Mr Thompson, the witness said that in the time he had to observe the van he did not think he gould avoid a collision by going to the left.

Mr Justice Richmond adjourned the hearing to today.