MOTOR COLLISION

Feilding Star, Volume 7, Issue 2243, 26 June 1929, Page 4

MOTOR COLLISION

CASE BEFORE THE GOTTI? T

JACKSON v. ARMSTRONG

Further cveclince was given in the S.AI. Court yesterday, before Air B M. 'Watson, S.AI., in the case in which J. B. Jackson, electrician, of Feikling, sought to recover £3l 7s 9d from A. 0. Armstrong, traveller, of Wellington, damages Paused

by a collision at the intersection of Gladstone street and Aorangi street on February 23, J Jackson .claiming that the collision was due to the c.areiess and negligent driving of the defendant. The defendant *>ounterelaimed for £lO 17s damages to his car, alleging that the collision was caused by negligence on the part of Jackson.

The evidence given by Armstrong at the previous sitting of the Court was that at 3 p.m. on the day of the collision lie was proceeding towards Bedding and was approaching the in-, to:,■section of Gladstone stveej/ alp a speed of 25 miles an hour. Plaintiff’s truck was proceeding along Gladstone street with the- intention of crossing over Aorangi street. Witness pfoeoouod on his .way without slackening speed, having two reasons for doing so ; one that he had the right of the road; by reason of the off-side rule, and also because lie was on i main road and the' truck should gne way to him, as he considered it was the truck driver’s dpty .to *do so. However, the driver of the* truck didj nor dp so, and struck his car on the rear left hand,side, poshing it a considerable distance on in the side of the road toward the railway line. After the collision, lie steered! his car on to the other side of the road and then went back to the place where the collision occurred.

Mr I). 0. CqUinano appeared for plaintiff apd Mr J. Graham (for Afessps Morrison, SpHftt and Morrison of \yeUingtonj for defendant j E. Jarkson gave evidence that on February 23 last he , was driving h'is Ford truck in Gladstone street apioaehipg Aorajigi road, and on nearing the intersection he sounded’ his horn three times. When 30 or 40 feet, from the corner he saw a car poming Aorangi street at a high speed, on his right. He.applied ins brakes, and owing to the state of the road surface he could not stop without skidding, so he went straight ahead, and brought the car to a. standstill just on the bitumen. Armstrong's car struck his car on the left-hand wheel and mudguard, ami, alter the impact Armtrong’s ear skid_ dod for a distance of 102 feet, finally coming to a stop against a fence.

Plaintiff described the damage to his car, and how he made up his claim for £3l 7s 9d-

Evidence was also given by Cyril Mitchell, a hoy who had witnessed the. collision, who said Armstrong was doing about 35 miles, an hour at the time of the accident.’ He did not see Jackson before the collision. Evidence was also given by J. J. Sandhrook and Wright.

The Migistrate said both parties were to blame. Jackson did not pull up when lie should have done so, as he was coming" Irpm a. side road to a main road, and the other car was coming on }iis fight Jackson could not recover. Armstrong was also to blame. PTis.- speed was excessive, and he did not deflect from his ordinary course to avoid the collision. Judgment was for the defendant oil the claim and for plaintiff on counter claim.

Armstrong was allowed £6 vs costs and Jackson £2 12s 6d costs.