WESTERN HUTT ROAD ACCIDENT

Dominion, Volume 32, Issue 268, 10 August 1939, Page 11

WESTERN HUTT ROAD ACCIDENT

Evidence For Defendant

JURY VISITS SCENE OF

FATALITY

Evidence by defendant, Siegfried Eichelbaum, and his wife, was given in the Supreme Court, Wellington, yesterday, when the hearing was continued of the claim for £1524 damages by Mrs. Louisa Jane Sangster in respect of the death of her son, John Martin Sangster, bank clerk, in an accident on the Western Hutt Road, on Sunday, March 5. No other witnesses are being called for defendant. The evidence having been completed, the jury left to see the place where the accident happened, and the Court adjourned till this morning. The jurymen themselves expressed the desire to visit the place, but his Honour consented only after he had discussed the proposal with counsel in chambers, the road having been changed since the accident. A motion for a nonsuit was provisionally refused, leave being reserved for a renewal of the application later.

Plaintiff claims that defendant’s negligent manoeuvring of the car at the entrance to a private road upon his arrival there from Wellington caused the car driven by her son, also coming from the south, to leave the road. The Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers) was on the bench. Mr. O. C. Mazengarb appeared for plaintiff and Mr. G. G. G. Watson and Mr. W. P. Shorland for defendant. The last witness called by counsel for plaintiff, Dr. Ernest William Giesen, to whose home defendant and the passengers in his car were on their way when the accident happened, said he drove the three-quarters of a mile from his house to the junction of his road with the main road, where the accident occurred, when he was informed of it. He described the young man’s injuries and said he died half an hour of 20 minutes after he first saw him. In cross-examination witness said there were two usual methods for north-bound cars to enter his road. He described them. It was impossible, to get into the drive without manoeuvring across the road. Defendant’s Evidence. Defendant said that he had with him Mr. Lawrence Stix, New York, who left New Zealand a few days later, Mrs. Eichelbaum and their two children. He went slightly past the junction of the road to Dr. Giesen’s home with the Western Hutt Road, not being very familiar with the place. Before reversing he allowed two cars to pass. There were then no cars in sight in either direction. He backed across the road into a position in which the nose of the car faced the entrance, that being done in one backward movement. He was 15 or 16 feet across the bitumen, that being the length of the car. It was quite wrong to state that he moved backward again after stopping as the witness Jenkins had said the previous day. To defendant’s knowledge Jenkins gave no evidence to that effect at the inquest. He had just started moving forward and then saw gangster’s car north of the bend, coming toward him fast. It was on its correct side at first. He continued to go forward till most of his car was within Dr. Giesen’s drive, but stopped because he found it necessary to back again. He remained there to allow the approaching car to pass. Out of his left-hand rear window he caught a glimpse of the car rushing past and heard a sound as of wheels on gravel. Looking out the rear window of the hood he saw the car turn a somersault in the air. £t no time after seeing the car first did he go backward. He took it for granted that the other driver had seen him and he expected him to stop or go behind. Mrs. Staveley’s description of the accident was wrong. Uross-cxamination. To Mr. Mazengarb, witness said that he did not realize it was a dangerous manoeuvre to make on a busy thoroughfare, it not being dangerous when the road was clear. After he had backed he travelled forward far enough to leave the tail of the car 4ft. 6in. on the bitumen. He was absolutely sure that his car was not “standing right across the road” when the other car went off the road, as had been stated by a witness. He did not think he could drive his car into the entrance on one lock, coming from the south. Clara Vera Eichelbaum, wife of defendant, gave evidence along the lines of her husband’s. .She said the car driven by plaintiff’s son approached at a very high speed, then went off at an angle at the same speed and went over the bank. Her husband did not back their car a second time before the accident.