COLLISION SEQUEL

Gisborne Times, Volume LXVIII, Issue 10712, 9 October 1928, Page 2

COLLISION SEQUEL

claim; AND COUNTER CLAIM

LENGTHY CIVIL ACTION.

Arising out of a collision between a service car and a . car driven by a commercial traveller,, near Motu in April last, a defended civil claim and counter-claim were,, fought out in the Magistrate’s Court before Mr E. C. Levvey, S.M;,; yesterday; The glaintiffs; were, Jo,hn Chambers and on, Ltd., who claimed a total « from John Oliver Musgrave, this slim comprising cost of repairs to tlie car and compensation for the loss of its use. Deferidant counterclaimed for £lO 10s, repair? to his car, and £8 general damages. Each party alleged negligence on the part of the other. After a hearing which lasted until 4 p.m., judgment was given for defendant on the claim, while ho was awarded the tun amount of his counter claim. Mr L. T. Burnard appeared for the plaintiff company, atnd Mr N. V. Hodgson, of Opotiki, for defendant. Mr Burnard explained that the claim arose out of a motor collision. The plaintiff was driving on the river side towards Motu; and it the point where the accident occurred there was a drop of about , -40 ft. The road whs narrow, end it had beeni raining! recently and being on the bank side, it was dangerous to stop. Neither; car was being driven fast. The defendant’s car, which which on the inside; struck plaintiff’s car, and subsequent observations showed that he (the defendant's driver) could have given another 2ft. 3in. It was impossible for the plaintiff to stop, because he was on the outside of the road. The width of the road was 13ft 9in., and lh© plaintiff’s car was 9 inches from the edge Defendant, on the other hand had 2ft. 3in. between him and the hank on his side and if lie wished to drive on it was hi? duty to move over further Jo the left. James Pettit, traveller in the' employ of the plaintiff company, stated that at about 3-3,0 in the afternoon, when he " wag driving along the Motu road from Gisborne, he saw a car approaching from the other direction. He pulled well oyer to hig own side of the road, which was wet, expecting the other driver to do likewise. At the last moment, he realised that the other driver was not going to pull over, and it was impossible for witness to pull, up, .as the bank might have caved in. The cars collided. Witness got out, and observed the position of the car facing him, which was then about 2ft. 3in. from the bank. He asked the driver of defendant’s car to note the position of witness' wheel marks. Mr Howchow was sent for, and with him witness took measurements. At" the point where the collision took place the width of the road was 13ft. 9in. Defendant's car was 2ft. 3in. from the bank. There was no watertahle there, . and defendant could have gone right in to the Bank if he had waited to, whereas it was impossible for witness to have pulled over any further on his side.

Cross-examined by Mr Hodgson, witness said that when he first saw it the defendant’s car was about 90ft. or 100 ft. away, and witness was travelling at from ten to fourteen miles an hour. Witness had the chains on his car, and as there was mud to a deptli of about lin. on the toad he was travelling slowly. George Campbell, commercial traveller, of Auckland, stated that when ho arrived on the scene of the accident, he noted the position of the cars. He followed Mr Pettit’s wheel-marks, and found that the left back wheel was only about a foot from the edge of the road, whereas'the other car was over 2ft.. from the bank. Hubert F. Forster, Gisborne manager of the South British Insurance Co., stated that lie knew the locality at the scene of the accident, and if he were on the outside he would expect a car coming from the other direction to stop or pull well over to the side. On such a road it would be dangerous for the car on the outside to stop. England Howchow, taxi-driver, stated that he arrived on the scene of the accident between 3.45 and 4 p.m. He observed the position of the cars, and followed the tracks of Pettit’s car, finding that the ouLside wheel was about Ift. from the riverbank. In his own car witness had passed other cars at that point on several occasions, and there was room for two cars to pass. Witness measured the road, which was 13ft. 9in., and the width of Pettit’s car was oft. 6in.

For the defence, Mr Hodgson alleged that the negligence was all on the part of Pettit. The evidence would be to the effect that Pettit was travelling at an excessive speed, and that Whittington; the defendant’s driver, was travelling at a reasonable speed, and was well over to his proper side. Pettit, on the other hand, was on his wrong side until within al)out ten yards of the point where the collision occurred and lie then swerved over, but owing to the angle at which lie swerved, and to the speed of his car, he was unable to get clear. Percy Henry Whittington, driver of defendant’s car, stated that when he came roupd the 'corner before the accident he was travelling at about 20 miles an hour, on his proper side, and the other car was travelling too fast for witness’ liking when it appeared. The plaintiff’s car was on its wrong side when it appeared and was not more than 2ft. 6in. from the high bank,, Witness applied his brakes, and pulled in as far as he could. Pettit seemed to pull out from a bank, and when lie saw that he could not get round lie pulled into witness’ ear. Pettit’s car struck the right-hand side of witness’ car and bent the . front axle. Witness got out and inspected the damage. After the accident Pettit’s car was facing towards the river. Witness followed the marks of Pettit’s car hack for a distance of about ten yards, and found that the right-hand side of Pettit’s car was about 6in. from the hank; and the front was about 18in. from the bank, having been pushed out from the bank by the impact. He looked at the left side of his car, and saw that it had been scraping the hank. Tn fact,. his car was so close .to the bank that the grease-cap was knocked off the front wheel. Rapgi Wilson Ford, a isheeptarmer gave corroborative evidence. Defendant, John Oliver Musgrave, service car proprietor, also gave evidence as to visiting the scene ot the accident and examining the position. , Robert John Thompson, tyre-re-pairer, of Gisborne, described the inquiries to a tyre claimed for .and stated that its value had been diminished by half. In i his summing up, the Magistrate stated that he considered plaintiff , had shown negligence, therefore judgmjent' oh the claim would go to the defendant. On the counter-claim, the full amount sought would he awarded, with costs to he fixed by the court.