DAMAGES CLAIMED

Dominion, Volume 23, Issue 33, 2 November 1929, Page 17

DAMAGES CLAIMED

SEQUEL TO COLLISION RETURNING FROM CABARET A claim for - £1167 damages, arising out, of a motor-car accident last June, was heard before Mr. Justice MacGregor in the Supreme Court yesterday. The plaintiff was Robert Bowes Kirkland, of Wellington, plasterer, and defendants were John Delacourt -Morrett, company manager, and Henry Stanley McLucas, salesman, both of Wellington. . Plaintiff was represented by Mr. O. C. Mazengarb. Mr. H. F. O’Leary, with him Mr. L. H. Herd, appeared for Mer« rett, and Mr. H. H. Cornish for McLucas. The plaintiff alleged that on the morning of June 30 last, he was a passenger in a motor-car driven by defendant McLucas. Defendant Merrett was driving his car immediately behind, and in the same direction as the car in , which , tlie plaintiff was travelling. While the two cars,were proceeding up the hill leading to Johnsonville they came into .violent collision, plaintiff being thrown to the ground and seriously injured. Plaintiff further alleged that the accident was due to the joint and simultaneous negligence of defendants in (1) driving at an excessive speed, (2) failing to keep their respective motor-cars.under proper control; and particularly through the negligence of Merrett, in (3) driving too near the leading motor-car, (4) failing to keep a proper look-out, and (5) failing to slow down or steer clear of the front car when it ilowed down. The Defence. The defence of Merrett alleged that the accident was due entirely to the negligence of defendant .McLucas in that McLucas (1) was travelling on the wrong side of the road, (2) swung suddenly to his correct side, causing his car to sway and collide with a fence, (3) brought his car to a stationary position .across the road, in the wsfy of traffic, and (4) failed to keep his car under proper control. ‘ ■ The defence for the defendant McLucas was to the effect that the accident was due entirely to the negligence of Merrett, in (1) following too closely his (McLucas’s) car, (2) failing to keep a proper arid adequate look-out, (3) failing to keep -hia car under proper control. (4) failing to slow down er to keep clear of McLucas's car when that car Slowed down, arid (5) wrongfully and negligently bringing his car into collision with his (McLucas’s) car. Plaintiff's Evidence. Plaintiff; in the witness-box, stated that when the accident happened he was sitting in the 1 front seat of the car: driven bv McLucas. They had been to a cabaret at Titahi Bay, and were returning to the city.' Witness said that Merrett admitted to him making a statement to the insurance company, admitting. running into -Mcjiucas’s car. He admitted also that he was liable. Merrett took up the-stand that he was liable, but that McLucas was liable also, and since McLucas would not admit liability, the matter had been brought to Court. McLucas had never admitted liability to witness. In reply to Mr.. O’Leary, witness denied that McLucas’s car cut the corner before the accident of that it was driven at an excessive speed. . * To Mr. Cornish, witness said he was positive that McLucas had had no liquor during the evening. Merrett Describes His Part. •?- Evidence was given by defendant Merrett. Describing the accident, he alleged that McLucas was on the right of him, cutting" the corner. A motor-cycle came round the corner on the correct side of the road, but there was not much room for him to get through, between McLucas j and the bank-.: McLucas swerved to ; the left, and witness, frightened that the mo-tor-cyclist might get into a spin, | also moved in to the left. Witness, considered he was between fifty and sixty feet behind McLucas. Witness focused his eyes on the motor-cyclist because he was afraid the latter would get into trouble, and on looking up he found that McLucas had disappeared round the corner. The road being clear, witness accelerated, and then - about fifty feet away, McLucas’s car appeared broadside across the road. There was no room to get through either at the back or the front, so witness applied : his brakes', but could not pull up in time. He considered that the speed of his car at the moment of impact was about 10 miles an hour. McLucas's, car appeared to be stationary. After wit- x ness’s passengers got out they found Kirkland lying on the ground 'in the front of his car, on the extreme right. The case will be resumed on .Monday morning. i ,