“Unreasonable Speed.”

Gisborne Times, Volume LXVIII, Issue 10733, 2 November 1928, Page 7

“Unreasonable Speed.”

GACSF. of accident, claim for damages fails. A claim for the recovery of the cost of repairs to a ear nmcnnting fo £'d2 4s 7d, arising out. of a collision at the intersection of Disraeli Street and Gladstone Road on June 23 last, made by the J. i>. Rutland Proprietary Co. Ltd. against Chas. L)tinstone, in the Alagistrate’s Court yesterday. The firm alleged that Dun stone 'had unskilfully and negligently driven his car whilst in a state of intoxication, thereby colliding with their car and damaging it. to the amount claimed. The re-

covery of the assessor's fee £3 10s, was also sought by the firm. The plaintiff was represented hy Air. S. V. Beaufov whilst Air. T. A? Coleman and J. S . W auehop acTcd lor defendant.

The clerk of the court was called by Air. Beaufov to prove that Dunstone had been convicted for intoxication in charge of a car oil the date of the accident. The amount of the claim for repairs was also substantiated by Air G. F. Bignell. garage proprietor. The assessor. Alfred H Collett, stated that the fee for fixing the amount of damage to the car was £3 ICs but he admitted under cross-examination that lie was instructed by the insurance company to act in this capacity and not by plaintiff firm. Constable Gatehouse, who arrived on the scene shortly after the collision, said that both cars were still there. AVhen he pointed out to defendant his wheelntarks. Dunstone declared that- the driver of the other ear should have stopped and the accident would not have occurred. He

submitted a plan as revealed h v the defendant's car wheel marks, sltowng where he had crossed the tram linos to the point where the collision in the centre of Disraeli street where if. opened out into the main thoroughfare. He admitted he did not

<ce the wheelmarks of the oilier car. Dor the defence, Afr. AVauchop submitted that Dunstone in turning ■nro Disraeli Street became traffic on the other driver's right hand and, therefore, under the right hand rule the onus was on the latter to give way.

Chas. AV. Dunstone, the. defendant, stated he had been driving a car fo r throe or four years. Just nrior to the. accident he drove up Gladstone road keeping well to his correct side and approaching Disraeli

street signalled he was turning to rho right, and went as near ns what lie thought practicable to the cen-

tre of the intersection before turning. hie declared that had there been a traffic dome ill the centre of i lie road ho would have rounded it. Ho noticed a ear approaching about ilitoo chains awa.v when he was about io turn,- and then his ear suddenlv struck and swung round into the watortnblo. Tie contended that hadthe other car been travelling at. a reasonable speed ho would liavo had ample time to have rounded the corner.

Under cross-examination hy Air Beaufov defendant stated th*p T sounded bis horn and signalled hi* intention of turning a chain before.reaching the inru-Tsection hut apparently the other driver did not see or hear him. He did not believe it was risky to attempt the turn, in fr.ee of the oncoming car which had throe times the distance to travel that he had. His ear was at right angles to the other at the time of the impact. The speed of the oilier ear he estimated at 30 m.p.h. John Leslie, an eyewitness of the accident, stated his attention was attracted to plaintiff’s car by Hie roar of the engine and the speed at which it was travelling. He then hoard Dunstone sound his horn and signal his intention of turning into Disraeli .street, but' apparently, Leonard, tho driver of the other car did not, hoar the horn and could not see the signal in the growing darkness. He considered that Leonard was travelling at least .35 m.p.h. and in his opinion the speed was the sole cause ol the collision, for had the latter boon travelling at a reasonable pace. Dunstone would liave had ample time to cross into Disraeli street. Questioned by Air. Beaufov witness said that Dunstone was travelling about 10 m.p.h. when he made ihr turn.* In all the circumstances witness would have acted in the same way as defendant. Traffic Inspector Scott stated that he had inspected the scene of the collision three days pater and noticed wheel marks on -the road surface that had apparently'been made at the time of the accident. He declared that had there been a traffic dome at that intersection, the car driven by Dunstone could have rounded it all right and could have straightened up. lie admitted to Air. Beaufoy that he could not contradict the evidence of the constable concerning the v.-heelmarks, seeing the latter was on the scene whilst the cars were still there just- after the collision. ITc also agreed that it would be exeeediriglv difficult to distinguish wheel marks accurately on a main road three days of up an accident.

Rupert Scott, a lorry driver, who was "itting in a car in Gladstone Road facing the Ppst Office, about ten yards from the Disraeli Street corner when the accident occurred, stated ho noticed Dunstone’s car coming nn the road and likewise heard the'other car approaching from behind, travelling at a speed he estimated to be 30 rn.p.h. Dunstone irade the proper turn to his correct side of the' road into Disraeli Street, though ho did not see whether or not defendant signalled his intention of turning. The ear was just creeping along at the, time. He contended thatVad the plaintiff’s ear been travelling at a reasonable speed the accidentT would not have occurred, ns Dunstone would have rounded the corner. It appears that the other driver did not apply his brakes and was only stopped bv the force of the impact. His explanation or the Ford driver’s not applying his brakes was that he did not see Dunstone’s car. Mr Beaufov: Do you think he was drunk ?—1 don’t know that anyone was drunk. I suppose you know the Magistrate's decision in* the previous case against Dunsfcrtne; he was held to be drunk, although you then asserted hdjwasn’t, . the Magistrate with you!'—Yes. iffirther, witness'asserted that had jjSfe Ford driver been looking out the accident would not have occurred. Ho admitted that he judged _ the speed of the other car by seeing _it travel oniv a few yards, and likewise in that time judged also Dunstone’s sobriety. The Magistrate said he had concluded that the real cause of the accident was the unreasonable speed ai which plaintiff’s car was driven. There was no doubt that there was a normal, though illegal, tendency on the part of drivers after traversing the rough stretch of the roe; 1 higher up. to accelerate. and it seemed that nlaintiff had accelerated to a speed that led to the accident. The manner in which defendant made the turn was di-nuted, hat even assuming he did this imnronerly. he considered that plaintiff was travelling at such a speed as to Tender i f impossible for him to _ null up or swerve to avoid the collision. In h- c op'nion nla.intiff had the last opportunity of avoiding the and he could not claim the right of way as he lost it through contributory negligence in regard to his speed. Judplmcnt would, therefore, he for defendant-, with costs,