CLAIM FOR DAMAGES

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 3115, 20 June 1917, Page 6

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES

COLLISION BETWEEN TRAM AND MOTOR WAGON. Mr. W. G. "Riddell; S.M., delivered judgment.-in the 'Magistrate's Court: yesterday in the ease of Munt, Cottrell and Co., Ltd., v. the Wellington City. Corporation, a claim for .£t2!l 12s. 6d. for damages to a motor wagon and loss of profit consequent upon.'a'collision at • the intersection of Tarauaki' Street witK Manners Street, on December 18, 191G, between a trnnicar belonging to defendant and plaintiffs' motor wagon. Plaintiffs claimed that the moiorman was negligent in that lie was driving across the intersection at a high rate of speed, and that if he had been proceeding at a moderate speed the collision would, not have occurred. Ttis Worship said: "Tramcars are public conveyances run to a scheduled time-table, and on a crossing or intersection when both vehicles are moving it is the duty of a free vehicle under ordinary circumstances to give wav to the public one." and expressed the opinion that the weight, of evidence went to show tliat the tram driver was travelling over the intersection at a sueeil greater than a careful driver would have used. "Opon the evidence given the tram driver must bo held negligent." With respect to t.ho driver of tbe motor wagon, l.hc. Jfagistrnto thought that if tlio driver had been keeping a proper look-out ho must havo seen the Iramear anproachuig in time to stop before he reached the tramline. Concluding, His Worship said: "1 think the weight of evidence shows that plaintin's' motor wagon would not have been, damaged if it i«i(I l)(, ° 11 stationary w'liou the tramear reached it. and tbat it was partly due to plaintiffs' driver not keeping a proper look-out. and not. stopping the motor wagou earlier that the collision occurred. In lliw iwnert 1 t.liink his management n! the motor wagon was negligent and contributed to the collision. That: being so, T find that the collision was due to the joint and simultaneous negligence of tlio drivers of both' vehicles, and tlio rule of lav in such a. case is that plaintiff cannot recover." Judgment, was given for defemliint. with' costs; .US lis. At hlie hearing Mr. T. W. Hislop appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. .1. O'Shea for tlio City Corporation.