MOTOR COLLISION

Evening Star, Issue 21992, 30 March 1935, Page 3

MOTOR COLLISION

BOTH PARTIES MOM-SUITED Mr H. J. Dixon, S.M., gave his reserved judgment as follows in a motor collision case at Cromwell: — In this case the plaintiff, George Wade,' claimed as damages £6l 2s 6d from the defendant, H. J. Holm, and the defendant counter-claimed for £57 l"s as damages. The damages were claimed as a result of a collision between the motor vehicles of the partties, each alleging the other to have been driving negligently. The plaintiff was driving his motor car along the road towards Cromwell about 8 p.m. on May 26, 1934, and the defendant was driving a light motor truck from Cromwell. The vehicles collided, and the damages claimed are the costs of repairs in each case. The vehicles hit each other about the right front wheels. The plaintiff gave evidence to the effect that he was driving along the road on his left-hand side at twenty to twentyfive miles per hour close to the grass. Suddenly the lights of the defendant’s vehicle appeared in front of him and there was a collision. He claimed that the defendant's ligh'., were out until just before the collision, and that the defendant was on the wrong side of the road. He was supported to some extent by his brother-in-law, who was in the car. Mr Congalton, a motor garage proprietor, gave evidence as to finding the tracks of plaintiff’s car before the accident to show that plaintiff was ou the cornwt side of the road. There was a scar on the road made by the huh of the axle of plaintiff’s righthand front wheel, and this was on the plaintiff’s left side of the road about 7ft from the side. After the impact the. plaintiff’s car ran forward lor a few feet. The defendant’s evidence was to the effect that he was driving along the road with proper lights, lie was on the centre of the road, and when he saw the other car he swerved to bis left and slowed down. He stated that he could not have got any further to his left, and that his lights were on all the time. He had a companion in the truck with him. After the impact the truck had swung round across the road at right-angles and on its proper side. There was a scar on the road about 7ft from the plaintiff’s left side of the road. This was made by the hub of plaintiff’s wheel, the wheel having been smashed off .by the impact. r J he soar ran at a slight angle in the direction that plaintiff’s car had travelled after the impact. The plaintiff contended that this was where the impact took place. If it is so there could be no doubt that the defendant was on the wrong side of the road. Congalton stated that he saw the tracks of plaintiff’s car before the accident. This evidence is rather surprising. Others looked for tracks, including the constable, but could not find any. Congalton saw the constable looking, but did not appear to have mentioned it j anyone. There was a police prosecution over the accident six months ago which depended mainly on where the impact took place, and no mention was made of these important tracks. They do not agree with "Wade's evidence, which was to the effect that he was along side the grass on the left side of the road for some distance before the impact. As he thought there was no other car on the road he would not be likely to keep right over. Congalton said: “"There was a mark on the road

. . . jukl that 10ft back Wade’s car had been .'{ft or 4ft further out from the side of the road.” As the mark was 7ft out from the edge, another 3ft or 4ft would make the right wheel 10ft or lift out from the grass. The road was 21ft wide, and this would make the plaintiff’s right wheel just about or over the centre of the road. Both parties state that they saw each other when Holm turned the corner. As Holm was 840yds from the corner when they met, he must have travelled that far while Wade only travelled 175vcls. As Wade was going twenty to twenty-five miles per hour, this was obviously not correct. It would mean that the truck travelled at 100 to 125 miles per hour over a rough road. 1 should think they were much nearer when they saw each other. This would explain the apparent disappearance of Holm’s lights, as there are some dips in the road nearer the scene of the impact. The evidence of the witnesses to the accident, that is the parties and their companions, did not satisiy me that they knew what happened just prior to the accident or wnere they were on die road. They made contradictory statements, and which were contradicted by other witnesses and were different to what they had said before, their evidence did not fit in with the position of the cars after the accident. Both drivers went to the hospital after the collision for slight injuries. If the impact took place wliere the scar was it uoes not explain how the defendant’s truck came to be in the position it was, nor docs it explain the glass on the defendant’s side ot the road, nor how ino truck was HUft further up the road. The defendant's lorry did not run on for some distance and then swing round, according to the marks and the evidence, as it would have had to do to fit in with the plaintiff’s contention. The defendant’s contention was that the plaintiff’s car ran a few feet after the accident, crossing to its loft side of the road, and that the hub did not strike the ground until the car had travelled some feet after the impact, and that the direction of the scar supports this view. This would explain the position of the truck, and I think this is a correct explanation, and that the scar docs not indicate where the impact took place. The impact took place somewhere opposite where the truck stopped. The marks seen by Congalton showed Wade to have been out 10ft or Hit from his side of the road before the scar. The defendant stated that he was driving up to 10ft from his side, but that at the time of the impact his right wheel was 7ft out from the gutter. If this had been so the evidence is that the back wheels would have been swung round on to the grass by the impact. It is contrary to Congalton’s evidence l as to the marks. The lorry did not run back after it had swung round. As to the exact spot of the collision, there is no evidence. Each driver stated he vyas well over on his proper side at the impact. but 1 have stated their evidence is not reliable. The impact must have taken place near the centre of the road, and it is possible that both their righthand wheels were over the centre line a little. Again, only the right-hand wheel of one of the parties may have been over the centre, but it is not possible to say which. I do not accept the evidence for tho plaintiff as to the lights of Holm’s car being out just before the impact. Holm’s evidence on this point seems more probable and reliable. In any case, Wade saw him 30ft or 40ft away. No explanation was given as to how one of Holm's lamps came to be 42ft clown the road towards Pembroke after the impact. I think, therefore, that' each party has failed to prove the negligence of the other. Plaintiff will be non-suited on the claim, and the defendant will be non-suited on the counter-claim. There will be no order as to costs.