WAITATI ROAD FATALITY

Evening Star, Issue 21710, 3 May 1934, Page 13

WAITATI ROAD FATALITY

PLAINTIFF AWARDED £1,300 CLAIM AGAINST LORRY DRIVER A verdict in favour of plaintiff for L 1,300 was returned by. the jury in the Supreme Court last night in the case in which Jessie Rae Bray (widow of Joseph Francis Bray), of Merton, claimed £2,000 as damages for a fatal accident on the Dunedin-Waitati road against Norman Hamilton Gilmore, a carrier, of Dunedin. Mr Justice Kennedy presided. Mr P. S. Anderson appeared for plaintiff and Mr A. N. Haggitt for defendant. Thomas Henry Robinson, company inspector, gave evidence as to the rates of wages paid on farms, and Edward William Fulton (Pensions Office) informed the court of the pension payable to a widow with children. Addressing the jury, Mr Haggitt said he would admit that Gilmore was not travelling as far over to the left as he might have done. But there was no rule that a driver must always hug the left-hand side, and it was a common practice when the road was clear to keep to the centre, where the surface was good. Counsel contended that there was ample room for the horse to pass the motor without injury. As a matter of fact, tile horse did pass the front of the lorry. This bore out what Gilmore said—that he carefully negotiated the corner and then, to his astonishment, found himself faced by a horseman. The true and decisive cause of the accident was, he submitted, to be found in what took place after the horse had passed the front of the lorry. Another question for the jury to consider was: Could Bray, by the exercise’ of reasonable care, have avoided the accident? The fact that Bray had nine feet clear showed he could have done so. The evidence, however, showed what Bray’s condition was on that night. He was in a very excited state owing to his application to the relief board going against him. He returned from town in a very excited state ; he borrowed a horse, and he proceeded to drive cattle out of his paddock for the purpose of getting past the bailiffs. It would seem the bailiffs were terrified of the man that day and did not dare to interfere with him. On two occasions they had had to invoke the aid of the police for their protection. Those facts showed that Bray’s state of mind on that night was quite desperate, and that, counsel submitted, might have led to the accident. It was possible that the horse shied away from the lights of the lpn - y and then fell against the vehicle. That, at any rate, was a possible danse of the accident. Counsel, also addressed the jury on the question of damages. Mr Anderson said the rule of the road required the driver of a vehicle to keep to the left. True, in this case, the lights of the lorry would show straight ahead—in other words, on the bank—and it was for that very reason that the rule to keep to the left was made. If the driver of the lorry had kept to his left there would have been no mishap. As for Bray’s state of mind, it had been suggested that the man had pulled his horse on to the lorry. There was no evidence to support that contention. The witnesses who said Bray was in an excited state saw him at 5 o’clock, and the accident took place at 7 o’clock—two hours later —by which time Bray had had plenty of time to cool down. Counsel invited the jury to picture what had happened. Where was the lorry? From the evidence it was plain the driver had been cutting the corner. The impact took place about the middle of the road, and it must be remembered that the driver had just swerved to his left. The driver, therefore; must have been well on his wrong side, because, even after swerving, he was still on his wrong sicle. On that evidence alone the jury might bring in a verdict that the driver of the lorry was negligent. Counsel also pointed out that if the horse had shied there would have been marks of the animal’s swerve on the road, but as a matter of fact no such marks had been found. Further, if the horse had swerved, as shggCTfced, would the horse not have received injuries on ithe head or on the shoulder? As it was, all the injury was on the horse’s right side. On the evidence before the court counsel submitted that the defendant had not, proved what he set out to prove—that he had not been negligent. Further, he had not proved that the deceased was negligent. His Honour summed up, and at 5.30 p.m. the jury retired. They returned at 7.40 p.m. with a''verdict, for the plaintiff for £1,300, to be shared as follows : —£4oo to the widow, and the balance of £9OO to be equally shared among the-eight children, making their shares £ll2 10s each. His Honour accordingly gave judgment for the plaintiff for £1,300, with costs; expenses and disbursements to. be fixed by the registrar.