THE RIGHT OF WAY

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 110, 5 November 1926, Page 2

THE RIGHT OF WAY

FIRE ENGINE ON WRONG SIDE

CAR OWNER AWARDED DAMAGES FOR COLLISION. .

A sequel to a recent collision between a fire engine proceeding to a fire late at night and a motor-car, was an action brought in the Supreme Court yester- ■ day, when Emily Smith claimed £279 from the City Corporation. The plaintiff's statement was that on the evening of 25th June, the car, which was used as a taxicab, was being driven along Wakefield street, and while crossing Lower Taranaki street, was hit by a Sre engine, which was proceeding from Jervois quay into ' Lower Taranaki street. The plaintiff alleged that the fire engine was negligently and unskilfully driven at an excessive speed, and that the driver failed to keep to the near side of the road, failed to give warning of his approach, failed to keep a proper lookout, and failed to stop, or to steer past the plaintiff's car. As a result of the collision, the plaintiff's car was so badly damaged that a new chassis had to bo procured and other repairs made, and the plaintiff lost the use of the car for ten days. The plaintiff claimed £229, and £50 general damages. NEGLIGENCE DENIED. The Corporation denied that. there was negligence, and Baid that during the engine's course from the fire station the siren attached to the engine vu sounded continuously. The plaintiff'■ driver had ample opportunity to see and hear tho fin? engine approaching, and was bound unSer clause 67 of the Wellington City Bylaw, No. 1, 1908, on becoming aware that the fire engine was passing, to mo^e promptly out of the way, but failed to do so, and, on the contrary, so negligently and carelessly drove the motor-car that it collided with the fire engine. The defence further stated that the plaintiff' suddenly accelerated his car and made it impossible for the driver of the fire engine to avoid a collision. The driver of the fire engine swerved to the right to avoid a collision, but was unable to do so. The Corporation said that the damage to the motor-car was caused by the negligence of the plaintiff's driver, and alternatively that the plaintiff's driver was guilty of negligence which contributed to the accident. The Corporation counter-claimed for £30, the amount of damage to tho fire engine. CONFLICTING EVIDENCE. After hearing evidence, his Honour (Mr. Justice MacGregor) • said it wm quite clear that wheni the collision took place the plaintiff's car was on the correct side of the road, and tho fire engine was on its wrong side. The onus rested on the defendant to justify the. position of the fire engine. Hig Honour referred to the bylaw mentioned in the statement of defence, and said that, assuming that there was such a bylaw, it was clear that it did not apply to the case, because the driver was not aware that the engine was passing along Jervois quay. The plaintiff's evidence was that the siren on the engine had not leea sounded continuously, but that the evidence of the brigadesmen was to the contrary. The "evidence was conflicting, and the whole case turned on the credibility of the witnesses. He preferred the evidence of the plaintiff's witnesses. Eeferring to afire brigade-'s "right to the road," his Honour: said h« thought this was a dangerow doctrine. No doubt the brigade had a duty to proceed to the fire quickly, but it also had a duty, to avoid running into vehicles and pedestrians..:;. ::•:,; His Honour entered judgment for the plaintiff on the cjaim and the counterclaim, and intimated that-the amount of the special damages should be agreed on. He awarded £10, general damages. Mr. 0. G. White appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. J. O'Shen for th. City Council.