A MOTOR COLLISION.

Gisborne Times, Volume LVIII, Issue 9671, 18 April 1923, Page 7

A MOTOR COLLISION.

CLAIM FOB REPAIRS TAKEN INTO COURT. DAMAGES GIVEN AGAINST A LADY.

A collision between two motor-cars in Childers Bead -on February' 2 last formed the basis of a claim in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday by Edward Reginald Scarfc against Alice Bull, for the sum of £9 16s Cd for repairs to plaintiff's cars. James Henderson gave evidence that he was in the plaintiff’s car at the time of the accident. They were coming down Childers Road from Grey St. in the direction of the Borough Council Chambers. The defendant’s cap was proceeding in front of them, but on the right-hand side of the road. Both cars were travelling slowly, the plaintiff's <ar being probably two lengths behind the leading one. Just after passing Bright Street, -..the defendant's car took a sweep to turn into Allen' Bros, and .Johnstone's garage. No signal was given of the driver’s intention to turn across the road. When the defendant’s car was half-way across the road, however, it stopped, and thus rendered a collision between the two vehicles inevitable. Had she kept straight on, it was probable that the plaintiff, who had pulled round to the right to get behind the leading car, would have avoided a collision. When he saw the defendant’s car stop on the crown of the road, he applied the brakes, but it was too late then to

check the car. After the collision the radiator of the plaintiff's car was smashed in, and the water was pouring out of it. Evidence along similar lines was tendered by the plaintiff, Reginald Scarfe. He stated that, once the defendant’s car swung across in front of him tc turn into the garage, a collision was inevitable. The back spring of defendant’s car pierced his radiator when the cars came into Contact. Evidence was called by the defence in an endeavor to show that the collision was due to plaintiff driving too close to the rear of the leading car, thus placing himself in a position where he was unprepared to meet any contingency which might arise. It was

also contended that it was necessary

to swing out to the right side of the road, in order to be able to turn into the garage door. It was admitted, under cross-examination, that those in the garage did not hear the defendant sound the horn of the car before turn-

i ,ing into the building. ! In giving judgment, the Magistrate ! stated that the evidence was somewhat i confusing, hut it was clear that defendI ant, at. least from the Masonic Hall | to Bright Street, was on the wrong j side of the road. A number of propo- | sitions had been placed before the | Court as to the necessity or rights of j the parties in the circumstances under ' consideration. One well-established j principle was that, even if a party was I driving, even on the correct side, and I finding it necessary to swing out for I the purpose of turning a corner, then I that person should take such precauj tions as to ensure the safety of anyone j travelling behind. The evidence in the i present case was to the effect that the i defendant, did not even sound the horn i before turning into the garage, and i did not take the precaution to look bo- ; hind before turning across the road, ! as it was clearly lier duty to do. His Worship could not find that the plainI tiff had been guilty in any way of neg- ! ligenco in the matter. It was evident j to him that the accident was due to j’ the action of the defendant travelling i on the wrong side of the road, and i then swinging round and stopping in i the middle of it in such a way as. to i render a collision with the following ; car inevitable. 'As the amount of tlio 1 claim was not /in dispute, judgment [ would be for £9 16s 6d, with costs £3 Gs.