BEREAVEMENT NOTICES SERVICE CAR CASE

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXVII, Issue 20190, 7 March 1940, Page 1

BEREAVEMENT NOTICES

SERVICE CAR CASE

Beach.— The family of the late Mr. H. C. Beach w'ish to sincerely thank all kind friends for messages of sympathy and beautiful floral emblems in their sad bereavement. They also wish to specially thank Mrs. W. AV. Ludbrook for her services as nurse during deceased's illness.

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES PASSENGER’S ACTION ADDRESS BY COUNSEL . The.service car accident case which commenced in the Gisborne Supreme eluded to-day. The case was one in which Mrs. Thelma Melba Jolly, a passenger in a service car which was involved' in an accident on Te Reinga Hill on November 20, claimed £1362 14s Gd damages from the Duco Motor Service, Limited, on the grounds of alleged negligence. Mr. D. C. Purdie appeared- for the plaintiff, and Mr. L. T. Burnard, with him Mr. K. A. Woodward, for the defendant company. .Medical. evidence called for the defence included that from Dr. H Goulding Rice, and Dr. R. J. B. Hall, medical superintendent of the Cook Hospital, who referred to the plaintiff’s condition of health. Miss Rona Chapman, clerk in the Diido Office, said that the plaintiffs husband booked the plaintiff's seat on the. evening before the accident. He asked, for a front seat, because his wife was .in ill-health, but the front seat was not available. Horiald G. McKay, service car driver arid a shareholder in the company, gave evidence regarding the lengthening of the accelerator rod so that the shoulder formed on the rod could not foul the board. Tests were carried out before the car was put into service the following day. To Mr. Purdie, the witness said that following the accident he drove the damaged car back to Gisborne, but was- unable to make the accelerator stick. , Evidence by Mechanics John McCormick, motor mechanic, employed by the defendant company, said that all parts of the accelerator and carburettor were investigated for the purpose of ascertaining the cause of the jamming before the adjustment mentioned by previous witnesses was made. He. could find no fault with the accelerator after the accident. John Johnstone, motor garage pro prietor, . and James D. Martin, a garage foreman, gave technical evidence. Mr. Burnard moved for judgment for the defendant on the grounds that the defendant company had shown that the acajdent had been caused by the jamminMmrihe jleelerator, which had- shown and that the rebuttal for the defence had unanswered. Addressing Mr. Burnard said that bad the driver not acted promptly as-he did, the accident might have proved fatal. The car had been well handled and the car had been regularly inspected and well looked after. Pie submitted that the defendant company could not have taken greater care to prevent a recurrence of the accelerator trouble, and what happened could not have been foreseen. Mr. Purdie, after dealing with the law on the.matter, addressed the jury and submitted that the defence was required to. prove that the accident could not have been avoided. The driver, admittedly, had behaved admirably in a crisis, but he had already lost control of the car, and the Impact might have been considerably lessened if the driver had applied the hand-brake and prised the accelerator Up with the toe of his shoe ; Having once been warned of trouble with the accelerator, the company had not used adequate precautions, counsel added, to make certain that the trouble would not recur. (Proceeding).