KAWARAU GORGE SMASH

Evening Star, Issue 23000, 4 July 1938, Page 8

KAWARAU GORGE SMASH

SERVICE GAR'S PLUNGE FROM ROAD SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGES CLAIMED Claims covering a total sum of £l,OOl 17s 6d were the basis of an action commenced before Mr Justice Northcroft in the Supreme Court this morning, the case being the sequel to an accident in the Kawarau Gorge on November 7, 1935, in which a service car with two overseas visitors as passengers left the road and capsized down the steep bank of the river. The plaintiffs were the Mount Cook and Southern Lakes Tourist Company Ltd., Alexander Grant Wigley (the driver of the service car), and Harold Hay Walker (attorney for Marie Van Ternmen, of Sourabaya, Java, a passenger in the car). The defendants were John Beaumont Suisted and John Dickinson and Co. Ltd., of which firm Suisted was manager. Mr E. J. Anderson and Mr D. A. Solomon appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr J. S. Sinclair and Mr J. P. Ward for the defendants.

Outlining the case for the plaintiffs, Mr Solomon said that the Mount Cook Company controlled certain tourist hotels, and carried on a car service between these hotels. On November 7, 1935, one of these cars was being driven from Cromwell to Queenstown through the Kawarau Gorge by Wigley, who had with him as passengers Marie Van Temmen, the wife of a Dutch officer in Java, and Geoffrey Ernest Russell, a cotton merchant, of England. The evidence would show that tfie car was travelling at a reasonable speed through the gorge, on its correct side, on a road which was one of the most dangerous in this part of New Zealand. There was almost a sheer drop to the Kawarau River from Wigley’s side of the road, and he was approaching a bond, when suddenly the other car appeared, driven by Suisted in the course of his employment as manager of John Dickinson aiid Co. It was submitted for the plaintiffs that a car travelling to Queenstown on this section of the road could not proceed dead on the left side of the road, the edge being ragged and inclined to give way, whereas a, car travelling in the opposite side of the road must go hard on the left side of the road, close to the bank above. As Wigley approached the bend he sounded his horn, and at that moment Suisted appeared on the centre of the road. The result was that Wigley, to avoid a collision, had to move further over to his left. The roadway there then gave way, and his car plunged over the bank, rolling over before it came to a stop almost on the edge of the river. That a fatality was averted was remarkable. ' It was submitted by the plaintiff's that the accident arose from Suisted’s negligence. Wigley suffered a fracture of the pelvis, shock, and abrasions, and Madame Van Temmen abrasions and bruising. She was still suffering from the effects of her injuries. The car was extensively damaged. Counsel explained the-reason for the delay in commencing the Supreme Court proceedings. It was intimated the day after the accident that both Madame Van Temmen and Mr Russell intended to leave the Dominion almost immediately. The former’s evidence was taken at Auckland, but Mr Russell was on a world tour and some considerable time elapsed before be returned to England and his evidence could be taken. The plaintiffs’ claims were made up as follows;-—Mount Cook Company, £344 19s (value of car, £300; payment of Wigley’s wages, £2B 19s; aeroplane hire, £l2; car hire, £4) ; Wigley, £527 5s (hospital expenses, £7 Is; medical expenses, £2 2s; car hire, £lB 2s; general damages, £500) ; Madame Van Ternmen, £129 13s 6d (hospital expenses, £7 4s; medical expenses, £2 2s; damage to personal effects, £2O 7s Gd; gene till damages, £100). Evidence along the lines of Mr Solomon’s statement was being given at the luncheon adjournment. 1