DEFINITION OF MOTOR TYRE

Dominion, Volume 32, Issue 65, 9 December 1938, Page 15

DEFINITION OF MOTOR TYRE

Not Constructional Part Of Vehicle

MAGISTRATES’ FINDING IN UNUSUAL CASE Holding that a tyre was an accessory of a motor-car, Mr. J. L. Stout,( b.M. ; dismissed a case in the Magistiaies Court, Wellington, yesterday, in wbien Mr. A. It. Cooper, on behalf ot the Wellington City Council’s tratlie department sought to prove that a tyre was it constructional part of a vehicle and therefore within the meaning of liegu- ■ lation 4 of the Tratlie Regulations, ID3O. The motorist before the court, was Ronald Haylock, for whom Mr P. H. Putnam appeared, and he was clurrgei. with operating a motor-vehicle liable to cause injury to a person. Mr. Cooper said at the outset that the case was rather unusual. On September 11 “UJ-. lock was driving a car along the Hutt Road when a tyre blew out and the vehicle swerved and turned over. Isobody was injured. The tyre causing the trouble, however, had a split three or four inches long which bad been covered with a sleeve. . . An examination showed that in addition to the tyre which had blown out, another tyre had a bole in the ■"• side wall which was about the size ot a hallcrown. It was covered with a piece of rubber, placed there to act as a sleeve. Three of the tyres were more or less worn smooth, but the fourth was new and in good condition. A warrant of fitness was issued on September 1. “No car should have been on tile road with tyres in that condition,” Mr Hooper submitted, "and no warrant oL fitness should have been issued, x.ie question is whether a warrant of fitness should be issued in such circumstances.’ Counsel said the prosecution was laid under regulation 4, clause 2, ol the Tratlie Regulations, 1936, the first portion of which stated: “No person fibaii operate any vehicle of such mechanical or constructional condition as to cause, or be liable to cause, injury to any person or animal.” A tyre was a constructional part ot a vehicle. Mr. Hooper contended, because a vehicle was not complete unless it bad J Evidence of examining the vehicle after the accident was given by a traffic inspector, who described the tyres a" l ' said from his experience the ear was definitely in a dangerous condition. Mr. Putnam submitted that tyres were purely fixtures, or apparatus attached to a vehicle after its construction. Tlie tyres in this case might have gone into disrepair, but there was no defect in the construct ion of the vehicle. After Mr. Cooper had made further submissions. I be magistrate commented that (vies were accessories. Mr. Cooper: Yes, and they are also constructional parts. Tire magistrate: I do not think so under that regulation. The ease against Haylock was dismissed.