HORSE AND MOTOR

Evening Post, Volume CVI, Issue 48, 25 August 1923, Page 10

HORSE AND MOTOR

PBEMIEE BIGHT TO THE BOAD.

■-; An interesting point in connection with traffic relations between a motorcar and a horse-drawn .lorry was decided by .Mr. W-G. Biddell, S.M.,i in a judgment at. the •IMagistrate's Court on Thursday. The proceedings, which were of a civil nature, arose out of a collision in June last between the vehicles Jiiehtioned, at the corner of Featherston and Brandon streets. The plaintiff was Charles William Anderson, of Wellington, commercial traveller, represented by Mr: J. B: Meltzer, and he claimed £48 damages. The defendants were Messrs. Adams and Blyth, of Wellington; carriers, represented- by-Mr. J. F.B. Stevenson. ■ v ': ■■■ • ■ :

It appears that the plaintiff' was driving a motor-car up Featherston street to the General Post Office and the defendant was driving a. horse lorry iip Brandon street to Lambton quay. Both approached the intersection of the streets at right-angles to each other. The plaintiff alleged that h e was in the main road, and defendant should have pulled up his lorry to "let the car pass. Mr. Stevenson, for the defendant,' contended that as defendant's lorry was actually in- the intersection first the lorry did right in going straight on. The motorcar could have avoided the accident by pulling to. the left and passing behind the lorry, but it swerved to the right and thus caused it. \ . ■.'••■■

:"I do not agree," remarked the Magistrate, "that there is an obligation on ahorse and cart on its proper side to give way to a faster and more easily managed car coming at right-angles. In' fact, it was easier for • the car in this case to have avoided the lorry, especially as the latter vehicle .was in. the intersection first." Under ordinary circumstances, continued the Bench, if two drivers were approaching an intersection at right-angles the ordinary rule of the road was for each to go straight ahead and the two vehicles would pass without accident in the ordinary course of events. If one; stopped dead in an intersection or veered to the right he put the other in a quandary of doubt as to his intentions. The plaintiff seemed to think it was the duty of the lorry to pull up, but in this tho plaintiff was wrong. The lorry did right, in proceeding straight ahead, and the plaintiff did wrong in swerving to his right. Pulling up in an intersection would be likely to lead to an accident. It was impossible for the plaintiff to succeed, and judgment would be entered for tho defendant with substantial cost 3.