MOTOR-CAR OVERTURNS

Dominion, Volume 22, Issue 33, 2 November 1928, Page 15

MOTOR-CAR OVERTURNS

INJURED PASSENGER CLAIMS DAMAGES NEGLIGENCE OF DRIVER ALLEGED The sequel to a motor mishap which >ccurred about a milo on the Otaki s^ e $ Paraparaumu on January 17 of this year was heard before Mr. Justice Ostler and a common jury of twelve in_ the Supreme Court yesterday, when Miss Margaret Ellen Motley sued William Whitfield, a service ear proprietor, of Napier, and Hector Stanley McClelland, the driver of the vehicle concerned, for £1348 Ils. damages for injuries received, on the ground of alleged negligence. Mr. H. F. O’Leary appeared for plaintiff, Mr. A. M. Cousins for Whitfield, and Mr. W\ E. Leicester for McClelland.

In ths statement of claim the plaintiff said that she was a passenger from Dannevirke to Wellington on tae day in question. When approaching Paraparaumu the car was so negligently and unskilfully driven by McClelland that it ran off the road and overturned, seriously injuring the plaintiff, who sustained a crushed and broken pelvis, and was, as a result, confined to hospital for 09 days. The negligence of McClelland consisted in travelling at an excessive and dangerous rate of speed and in failing to properly control and steer the vehicle. In consequence of the accident plaintiff was incapacitated and would be so for some while to come. She was engaged to be married nt the time of the mishap, but had broken off the engagement because the doctor told her she must not think of marriage for at least two years. Plaintiff, who had turned 21 last June, claimed £9B Ils. as special damages for loss of wages, hospital expenses, doctors’ fees, etc., and £1250 as general damages. In opening his case Mr. O’Leary said that since the’ accident occurred the corner where the mishap took place had been considerably improved by being widened 20ft. Evidence, however, would be given to show the turn was a fairly difficult one and one that required a fair amount of skill to negotiate. On various occasions on the trip the speed of the car, which was a big powerful one, had been between 45 and 50 miles per hour, and twice the speedometer, which was under the observation of the plaintiff and her sister, :who were the only two passengers in the car, had registered 55 miles per hour. “Just before the accident occurred, continued counsel, “the pace was such that the plaintiff’s sister caught the other's arms and drew her attention to the speed.” Counsel said that the accident had occurred at 9 ° clock by summer time and 8 o clock normal —the time for lighting-up. On the long ■•stretch before the corner was reached the car had been going at 4o miles per hour' with the result that it was in trouble at the corner. It left the road and turned over two or three times The passengers andthe driver were: take by another car to Wellington where Mc >; Clelland took off his Whitfield badge, saying, “This is no good to me now, this is a very bad thing for me. I will my job I will have to put it down to a blow-out” Evidence would be given that McClelland on arrival in Wellington went to the Black and White garage where he usually garaged the car, and persuaded a man named Allan, who did not know at the time that anybody had been seriously injured in the accident, to look at the car as he passed the next morning and puncture a tire, so that he could say the accident had been caused by a “blow-out.” „ ... “Allan,” said Mr. O’Leary, “will swear that he did as McClelland had asked him to do, puncturing the tire on one of the front wheels.” . „ . Evidence was given along the lines stated by counsel. ' ' _ Cross-examined by Mr. Leicester, Henry Allan, a Black and White cab-dnver, said that he drove a file into the tire in one place only. He did not think that the hole he made would look li.« a puncture to an experienced motorist. Witness saw McClelland for the first time on January 17. When McClelland spoke to him there were two others present, and they could have heard the conversation. Witness had examined the marks made by McClelland’s car on the road when he passed the day after the accident. They seemed to be ordinary marks. They were not skid marks, but they were spread out at the corner. , . , , _ In reply to a question put by His Honour, witness said that the marks had not spread enough to indicate , a flat tire, while to Mr. Leicester he stated that he would not say there were no skid marks on the tire at all. His Honour: Was the tire flat when you punctured it? —“No, I am quite sure that it was not flat.” To Mr. Cousins: There was no gravel to speak of after the corner where the accident occurred.

Evidence for the defence will be given this morning.