MOTORISTS IN COLLISION

Evening Star, Issue 23000, 4 July 1938, Page 9

MOTORISTS IN COLLISION

PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM SUCCEEDS A civil action arising from a collision between two motor cars at the intersection of Gilfillan street, Tainui, and Cavell street on October 2, 1937. was heard before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M., in the judge’s chambers this morning. The plaintiff was Hannah Maria Hall Maslin, and the defendant was Archibald John Robson, a shop assistant. The plaintiff claimed £47 2s fid as damages, consisting of £35 2s fid, the cost of repairs to the car, £lO for depreciation, and £2 for deprivation of the car for four weeks. This was a collision case of a very ordinary and usual type, said Mr A. N. Haggitt, who represented the plaintiff. Her husband was driving the car. He did not possess a driver’s license, but was receiving a lesson from his son, who was a licensed driver. Maslin, sen., could not have averted the collision, his speed not exceeding a speed of 25 miles per hour. Mr Haggitt said that the speed of the defendant’s car was so great that the driver was not given a chance of avoiding the impact. There would be evidence that when the collision occurred Maslin was three-quarters of the way across the intersection. Then there would be evidence that the skid marks of the defendant’s car extended for 38ft. This vehicle hit and . capsized the car, travelled on, and stopped facing in the opposite direction. There was evidence that an admission ■of negligence was given by the defendant, who was alleged to have said after the accident that he was entirely to blame. The basis of plaintiff’s claim was that Robson was travelling at an excessive speed, that he fallen to keep a proper look-out, and that he failed to give way to traffic approaching from the right. The case for the defence, presented by Mr W. Ward, was that the plaintiff was on his wrong side of the road, that he did not blow his horn, that he was an - unlicensed driver, and that the defendant was travelling at a reasonable speed across the intersection.

The Magistrate said the evidence definitely favoured the plaintiff. There was the evidence of two persons that the defendant’s car was travelling at a high rate of speed, and it had been proved that the car travelled for 38 feet without ‘ stopping after the collision. The Magistrate was satisfied, therefore, that The defendant’s vehicle was speeding at 40 miles an hour when it crossed the intersection. Maslin may not have been as alert as more experienced drivers, but that did not affect the position, as he was suddenly placed in a position of peril. Judgment was accordingly given plaintiff for £47 2s fid, with court costs (£2 4s), witnesses’s expenses (£2 15s), and solicitor’s fee £4 3s).