MOTOR COLLISION

Evening Post, Volume CXX, Issue 133, 2 December 1935, Page 13

MOTOR COLLISION

GASE ON APPEAL

TRAFFIC INSPECTOR'S CLAIM

A City Council traffic .;> inspector, Percy Mills, was the appellant in- an appeal against a Magistrate's decision, which came before Mr. Justice Blair in the Supreme Court today. The challenged decision. related to an unsuccessful action for damages brought by Mills against Clifford Delfroy Andrew George, the driver of a car with which Mills, who was riding a motorcycle, collided.

The accident took place at the top of Constable Street oh November 1, 1934. Mills, who was endeavouring to overtake an offending' motor-cyclist, was travelling up Constable Street at 30 to 35 m.p.h. when he collided with the car of the. respondent,, who had come up Crawford Road, and was turning across the line of traffic intb Alexander Road on his way to the top of Mount Victoria. •-.■'.

The Magistrate found George negligent in going across the track of the inspector. Although the inspector was relieved of criminal liability by virtue of the fact that he'was on duty at the time of the accident, the Magistrate held that he ( was civilly negligent in that he was travelling too fast, and did not see the respondent in time to avoid, the collision. Finding the motorist and the inspector both negligent, he dismissed the latter's claim, and^aWo a'counter-claim lodged by the motorist.

Mr. W. E. Leicester, who. appeared for the inspector today, submitted that the fact that he was travelling at ,30 to 35 m.p.h. up Constable Street was not negligence at common law; it was only negligence under the Statute because it was in excess of the speed fixed by the Motor Regulations. If the inspector was exempt from the regulations the negligence would have to be negligence at common law before he could be held liable for the civil consequences of his acts.

It was submitted by Mr. H. Taylor, who appeared for the respondent, that even if the respondent at some stage had acted negligently his negligence was not the effective cause of the accident. In his submission the inspector was responsible for the accident In that he failed to see the Tespondent in time to. avoid the accident, or was unable to pull up within the limits of his vision. On those grounds, it was submitted, the inspector ■ was negligent at common law.

After hearing argument his Honour reserved his decision.