CLAIM FOR DAMAGES

Evening Post, Volume XCVI, Issue 137, 6 December 1918, Page 4

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES

ARISING OUT OF COLLISION.

Reserved judgment was delivered by Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M., yesterday in tho case of J. A. Beittie, for whom Mr. T Neavo appeared, against Frank T. Moore represented by the !ato Mr. A H. Hindmarsh, to recover £100 in respect to a motor collision. Late on the night of 27th August, defendant's motor 'bus was travelling from Wellington to Johnson viJle, and when passing the oil store on the Hutt-road the driver stopped the 'bus in order to pick up a lady passen ger. As the lady was crossing over to the 'bu» sbo noticed plaintiff's, motor car, which nwerved and struck the sta tionary motor 'bus near the left hand wheel, which caused the damage complained of. Tho night was dark with d drizzling rain. Plaintiff, in his evidence, stated that he swerved to pass tho lady, that he did not see the motor 'bus until ho was almost on it, and that the motor 'bus carried no tail-light A passenger on board plaintiff's car also said that the motor 'bus had no tail-light, and that he first saw the 'bus when it was about 50 yards ahead. The Magistrate held that the tail-light was out before the collision took place, but donbted whether the plaintiff was keeping as careful a lookout as he should have been. . As plaintiff was travelling faster than defendant he must have been gradually overhauling the motor 'bus, and consequently within the range of plaintiff's headlights. Continuing; the Magistrate said: "Although defendant's driver ma> have been guilty of negligence immediately prior to the time when the accident happened, I am satisfied that if plaintiff had been keep, ing a proper lookout he would have been ablo to see defendant's motor 'bus in time to a.vert an accident. In other words, I consider that plaintiff had a later opportunity of avoiding the accident than defendant, and in such a case iti has been laid down by authority that he cannot recover. In the cross-action, Moore v. Beattie, a claim for £25 for loss of use and damage to the motor 'bus, the facts ■were the same. In the case Beattie v. Moore, judgment was given for the defendant, with costs £6; and in the cross-action, Moors v. Eeattie, judgment was given for plaintiff, evidence to be taken to assess the damage.