MOTOR TRUCK BRAKES

Evening Post, Volume CVI, Issue 56, 15 September 1928, Page 11

MOTOR TRUCK BRAKES

CARRIER'S CLAIM SUCCEEI)S . -. .-..- ..■ ■-■) ..■ .-■- ; ■■•'" ' • ,--. ■.Eeserved judgment was -delivered by N ,3Mr. -ID. Pagej>..S;M. ) ...tp-day.'.lin;*the-• case^ in .which-.an' -insurance:-comgaiiy liability to pay, out. for damage /done 'to a inotpr-truck on.' the ground .that 'the brikei ■were\mop6rative. r ;-*Thff^^t»ff.'waß'Lßui« Brough, a carrier/ who ' proceeded against 'the Ocean Aecidentand Guarantee CorporatioiV Ltd., for £:8S 16s'. ■'■"'■ : ■'- ' '" On 23rd Febiniar'y •"last'-Broifgh's lorry, -which, .is-jpsur^- ,im§Si'y%' gpgjprehe.nsiva policy witli thWrdeEonaant' company, was damaged whei^i^r^ftto another lorry, and the dofendant'.epajpanyj-: -denying liability; " failed -to ; jnake;vgoqd the loss^suff?red:"by Bfoug'fi:';,.',.,-: : .-r ; ■;■?■. : y . ■ ,". '" After . dealing ;iri "ffe^'tl. witli. r tlie srateir.ents made concerning. the,IStSikes of cth* lorry, Mr: l"age said 'that .it .ha d been ■ shown "that the >plaihtiff's brateß were .■capsible of easy ad3ustment:aild- ffiat itihad ■been :his-custom >to: adjust'then!'"about ..once 4, v?eak. Even :if: ihe:._-£ully accepted-Hhe evidence on that..- particular :fpt>int called (6v ■ the defence, .it-.«Aye '.no. satisfactory conclusion as to the'.'s.tate o£ the• brak^B on the date of the accident.. ■• , Moreover, 6sier ■evidence had been called'.;{by'tlie plaintiff that on certain-dilts tne accident his brakes had "beeil effefttive;I" vi ■With regard to th'e-oollisipnj'the Miigis-;ti-ate said he had-: hadi-ra&* opportunity of ■ viewing the locality. l ':and'.ofr..'iaving > liad ■ wmej.sort of test.iofrthe.c-effeotiyeness. of 'tlie brakes (when as a.t:,p£fl.s.e;t»>; they -wjere in good .order) on.a.'lp.rry.of the type owned by the; plainiiCi'^Haymg regard', to the narrbwTiess' arid "'the'Jdanger of' vthe fbad and to thcS]arge"and,Jheayjr vehicle that'the ;plamtift"wa's dvivm|, it appeared to him' that •his-explaliatiori-v'tliat hi*^attention was,-concentrated on1-tiie" track-and that lie did not--.notice .-the.-.other lorry as earlj- ,as he. niightj-'.wasia; substantial Ipnc. Tlie.sother. lpi-ry-..ha,d,,no,."Upviijjand'.g'fcits driver 'could 'not,w4rn ; the "plaintiff. With tlie downhill grade,', a;Keavy^tciad,-arid' in the;geiiv, and at. tlie's]pe4.d.;'at'.'.which the plaintiff was moving, the fact that whett'he 'did'see tße other lorfyjvhe was'npt abje'to stop short of it, did nbt:iri hirfview establish .or. necessarily-suggest "that, his brakes were defective. .•, . :>;.',;.-. z■'■'•■ -. '. -, .-,: Looking at ; the-wlLple of 4he evidence, the Magistrate -concluded, he-Vas of Opinion that it fell'syibßtarit'ialfSr short' of establishing that- the .bfalifes Ivere defective, or that the car was .faiosvingly,-driven in am unsafe ci3nditfp'n::r;; The-plaintiff. ' (with whbiii' ■vv-as:';igir{ed--Inglsn;Brb9. and-Co., •TitS.) wns" •therefore" ettitl6.d; 4b judgntent '.for'tlte atnoiiut Claimed,!"with costs,;'to .'.-Mr" W. ij.rLeicester'lnd^lr.-R. M. Watterson appeared for 4he plain tiii's, and" .Sir. . H., E. O'JjCar.y fdr..the cje/endarct company.