MOTOR-CAR STRIKES TRAIN

Dominion, Volume 23, Issue 74, 20 December 1929, Page 15

MOTOR-CAR STRIKES TRAIN

RAILWAY DEPARTMENT NEGLIGENT SUPPLIANTS AWARDED DAMAGES Damages amounting in all to £73/16/were awarded the suppliants by Mr. E. Page, S.M., when giving his reserved decision in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday in the case in which Arthur John Curtis, Arthur Southwell Curtis, and Una Curtis, petitioned the Crown for compensation as the result of a collision between a car driven by Arthur Southwell Curtis and an unlighted train which was moving slowly across the siding on the Hutt Road from the Gear Meat Company’s premises. After dealing with the facts of the case, the Magistrate said that the first question was whether negligence on the part of the Railway Department had been established. “I am satisfied,” he said, “that as the car approached there was no adequate light protecting the train on the northern side. ... In my opinion negligence on the part of the Railway Depatment has been established.” “The second question is whether there was contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the motor-car,” continued His Worship. “It is difficult with good headlights to pick up on the black wet bitumen a uniformly dark object like a railway engine and van, and when the driver of the car did see it the only course open to him was to swing off to the right in the manner that he did. He was, I think, going at a reasonable speed, and in my opinion his failure to observe the obstruction earlier does not establish negligence on his part.” Concerning the question whether the suppliants’ position was affected by their failure to comply with section 58 .of the Government Railways Act, 1926, which provided that when within one hundred yards of the crossing it was necessary for a driver to slow down to ten miles an hour and then stop before coming into contact with the railway line, the Magistrate said that in order that this section should operate as a bar to the right to recover damages against the Crown, the failure to comply with it must have been wilful or negligent, and not the outcome of mistake, accident, or other justifying circumstances. The driver of the car knew that a pair of rails crossed the road at this point, but was unaware that it was a “railway crossing.” He believed that it was a private siding of the Gear Meat Company, and that the gates were locked up at night. “I apprehend that this is the belief of the great majority of those who use this highway,” said the Magistrate. Continuing, Mr. Page said that he did not think the failure to comply with the section was wilful or negligent, and that the section did not bar the right of the suppliants to recover. He mentioned that this section had since been repealed. Damages amounting to £73/16/- were awarded the suppliants. At the hearing Mr. W. E. Leicester appeared for the suppliants, Mr. C. H. Ta.vlor (Crown Solicitor) for the Crown, and Mr. D. A. Aitken for the Railway D<> partment.