SUPREME COURT Damages Of $3511 To Woman Motorist

Press, Volume CVII, Issue 31530, 18 November 1967, Page 20

SUPREME COURT Damages Of $3511 To Woman Motorist

After a concession from her counsel that a plaintiff, Ruby Frances Johnston, had herself contributed to a motor accident on the. Main West Road at Darfield by breach of the right-hand rule—and after a warning from defence counsel against whittling that rule away—a jury in the Supreme Court yesterday awarded Mrs Johnston $BOOO general damages, but reduced by 60 per cent for contributory negligence.

With special damages of $778 (agreed on) taken into account, Mr Justice Wilson en-

tered judgment for Mrs Johnston in the sum of $3511, in accordance with the jury’s verdict.

Mrs Johnston —whose case was conducted by Mr A. D. Holland, with him Mr G. C. P. Beadel had claimed $12,000 general damages for personal injury suffered In a collision with a car driven by Rita Winifred Gliddon, a married woman, of Oxford. Mrs Johnson had been driving west on the Main West Road where it curves through Darfield, and Mrs Gliddon east, continuing in a straight line off the main road on to a subsidiary road to Norwood It was claimed on Mrs Gliddon’s behalf that she had the right of way.

Mrs Gliddon herself gave evidence that Mrs Johnston's car had approached slowly, and almost stopped, so that she thought Mrs Johnston was yielding her the right of way. Mrs Johnston’s car had then suddenly “jumped forward,” and a collision occurred. “A Minor Contribution”

Mr A. D. Holland, in addressing the jury, said that even if Mrs Johnston had breached the right-hand rule —as she probably had—it was a very minor contribution to tbe accident, “more a technicality than a reality.” “Nobody in his right mind would have devised the righthand rule to apply to this intersection,” Mr Holland said. Any reasonable person would expect a car such as Mrs Gliddon’s, about to cross the line of traffic on a main road, to have slowed down and given way to, or got out of the road of, that traffic. The jury found Mrs Gliddon negligent in failing to stop, or steer clear of the plaintiff’s car, and the plaintiff herself negligent, by 60 per cent, in failing to yield Mrs Gliddon the right of way. His Honour granted defence counsel, Mr C. B. Atkinson, an extension to 28 days to move for a setting-aside of judgment, or a new trial. Mr Atkinson, in his submissions in Mrs Gliddon’s defence, said the fact that the plaintiff herself had failed to keep a proper look-out was “pretty well self-evident.” He submitted that there was no evidence before the jury that Mrs Gliddon had been negligent at all. In law, submitted Mr Atkinson, she had been entitled to exercise her right to proceed, under the benefit of the righthand rule, until she saw—or a prudent driver ought to have seen—that if she continued a collision would result. (His Honour, in summing up, upheld this view of the law.) And that was exactly what Mrs Gliddon had done, said Mr Atkinson. She had thought Mrs Johnston was giving way to her, when suddenly the latter’s car “jumped forward.” Mr Atkinson warned the jury against a whittling-away of the right-hand rule. Defendant’s Evidence Mrs Gliddon, in her evidence, said that she lived at Oxford, and had been driving for 25 to 30 years, frequently over the Waddington-Darfield-Norwood route. She approached the Darfield intersection at 27 miles an hour, slowing down to 20 miles an hour or less as she got on to it “As I got to the intersec-

tion I was watching Mrs Johnston’s car coming from the Darfield township,” Mrs Gliddon said. “It was coming very slowly, and almost stopped. ... I was quite sure she was going to give way to me. Just as I was about to go past her she shot forward, and swerved towards me." The collision then took place. Mrs Gliddon said it was her impression that Mrs Johnston had gone to put her foot on the brake, missed it, and put it on the accelerator. Under cross-examination by Mr Holland, Mrs Gliddon said she could see not only the lights of the plaintiff’s car, but the car itself under the light from the Darfield shops. “A Dangerous Intersection” Mrs Gliddon said she was concerned that she was approaching “a dangerous intersection”—but she did not rely entirely on a right-hand rule in her favour. The plaintiff was slowing down to give way to her, and had almost stopped. Mr Holland: Is not the position that you saw the headlights of the car coming slowly towards you, and thought you had plenty of time to go straight across? Defendant: No, definitely not.

Mrs Gliddon said that had she realised Mrs Johnston was not going to give way, she could have applied her brakes, but Mrs Johnston “jumped at her” as she was about to pass forward. Asked whether the fact that she had to cross over the white line in the centre of the Main West Road had not put her on guard, Mrs Gliddon said she did not think it had. She could not see it in the dark, and had not been taking particular notice of it.

Put to her that most traffic on the Main West Road would have passed across the path she was taking, Mrs Gliddon said: “I have never met a car on the intersection before.” Comment By Counsel Mr Holland, commenting in his address on Mrs Gliddon’s evidence that the plaintiff had appeared to slow down to give way to her, said: “Mrs Gliddon’s story just doesn’t bear analysis.” If the plaintiff’s car were travelling as slowly as Mrs Gliddon said, the very fact of a collision indicated failure to keep a look-out on Mrs Gliddon’s part. And with the slow speed of her car, Mrs Johnston could equally well assume that Mrs Gliddon was giving way to her. Medical evidence for the defence was also given yesterday morning by Mr A. B. Mackenzie and Mr W. A. Liddell, orthopaedic surgeons.