MOTOR COLLISION

Grey River Argus, 18 August 1937, Page 6

MOTOR COLLISION

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES SUCCEEDS. In the Magistrate’s Court, at Greymouth, yesterday, Frederick Lovell Turley, Secretary, of Greymouth (Mr W. D. Taylor) proceeded against Samuel McAra, draper, of Greymouth (Mr J. W. Hannan), claiming damages totalling £25 19s 9d, as the result of a collision between a car driven by plaintiff and a car driven by defendant at Brunnerton on March 7th last. Plaintiff alleged that the accident was due to defendant driving ms car in a negligent and unskilful manDefendant counter-claimed for damages totalling £3O 15s, alleging that the collision was caused by the negligence and the unskilful manner in which plaintiff drove and managed his car. His claim was made up of repairs £2O 15, and depreciation £lO. Mr Raymond Ferner, S.M., was on the bench. Mr Taylor said that the parties were involved in an accident near Brunner. Plaintiff was returning from Te Kinga. The scene of the accident was at a corner on the downgrade the other side of a bridge at the entrance to Wallsend. Defendant, it was alleged, came round the corner, cutting it on the wrong side at a high speed, with the result that the right front wheel of Turley’s car caught the rear of defendant’s car. On Mr. Taylor’s application, all witnesses were ordered out of court. Plaintiff in evidence said that he was travelling at about 30 miles per hour, and was right over on his right side of the road. Witness thought that there would be a head-on collision, _ but defendant swerved out, and finished up at an angle of between sixty and seventy degrees across the road. Witness’s car was almost stopped at the impact, he having applied his brake. Witness claimed £l5 19s 9d for repairs, £5 for depreciation, and £5 for expenses incurred in. bringing anotner car from Nelson, as he (witness) could not do without a car in connection with his duties. McAra made a statement in front of the constaole that he (McAra) was travelling at no more than 45 miles per hour at tne time of the accident. William Frederick Trevor Lowe, clerk, a passenger in plaintiff’s car, gave corroborative evidence. Witness said he saw the other car about 30 yards off and Turley gradually applied the brakes. Sinclair Trotter, engineer, Grey Power Board, who soon after the collision occurred reached the scene of the accident, stated that the bitumen was wet, and the car tracks were fairly clear. Those of Turleys car showed that it had been travelling about a yard out from the water table for about a chain back. Constable J. Rodgers, Brunnerton, stated that he was called to the scene of the accident at the request of plaintiff. He detailed the positions of the cars which both parties said had not been shifted. McAra’s car was at an angle across the road and Turley’s car was on its correct side facing towards Greymouth. The back of plaintiff’s car was only about a foot out from the bank and the front of it was about two feet out McAra’s car was forty reel away, There were no track marks on tne bitumen when witness arrived as it was raining. There was a skid mark in the shingle outside the bitumen, which was admitted to have been made by McAra’s car on his left siue. It appeared to witness that McAra’s car had come across the road fairly sharply. At the bend where the accident occurred, cars had a tendency to swing in towards the inside bank, He could give no indication where the-', collision actually occurred. Colin Johnston Smith, labourer, of Otira, who arrived on the scene of the accident soon after it happened, stated that he saw the skid marks of McAra’s car about six feet from the bank, when it took a sharp turn across the road. Turley’s car was close in to the bank and if anything just around the corner. This concluded plaintiff’s cases. Mr. Hannan moved for a non-suit on the grounds that there was no proof that Turley was the owner of the car. He might have been driving as a servant of the Workers’ Union, he said. He proposed to call evidence and asked for leave to reserve the non-suit point. According to the defence evidence, the collision occurred from ten to twelve feet round the corner. It would be seated that Turley was travelling at a speed estimated at between 40 and 50 miles per hour, well out on his wrong side of the road. It was claimed that plaintiff’s car travelled about 40 feet after the collision. Defendant, in evidence, said that he was travelling towards Stillwater in company with his wife, his sister and a Mr. Smith. He saw plaintiff’s car approaching down the hill and pulled over towards the outside of the road. Plaintiff’s car then struck the rear of his car. It was travelling straight down the crown of the road. Plaintiff was travelling between 45 and 50 miles per hour. His car was off the side of the road and in the gravel when Turley’s car hit his car. The back wheel of his car left a skid mark in that gravel. The effect of the impact was to pull witness's car back on to the road.. Witness pulled his car to the right. If he had not pulled off the road there would have been a head-on collision over the bank. His car travelled about six feet after the impact and Turley’s car 35 to 40 feet. To Mr. Taylor: Witness was keeping a proper look-out. Turley’s car travelled to its correct side after the impact. He suggested that in travelling 30 to 35 feet he straightened his car out. tie was well on his correct side of the road when he came- round the corner. He agreed that plaintiff’s car was within three feet of the bank when it finished up. Witness denied that he “cut the corner.” It was a dangerous corner. It would not be difficult for Mr. Turley to come out as he (Witness) had suggested, as he knew Mr. Turley. Mrs. Mary Ann Cecilia McAra, wife of defendant, gave corroborative evidence. Witness stated that the back wheels of her husband’s car were off the bitumen and in the gravel. The front wheels had been kept on the Bitumen, as if her husband had gone over ’any further, he woula have gone off the road.

To Mr. Taylor: Her recollection of the circumstances was quite clear. It would be impossible for Turley’s car to have been travelling close to the bank before the accident. Miss Clarice McAra, said that she saw plaintiff’s car as they got around the corner. Her brother pulled his car to the left and on to the shingle. Plaintiff’s car came on and struck the rear door of her . brother’s car. It was a wet day and no track marks could be seen on the wet bitumen. Thomas Magee, labourer, said that he was walking along the road and Turley’s car passed him. The colli-

sion occurred about 20 feet from the corner on the Brunner Station siue. Plaintiff’s car was travelling fairly fast and the other one much slower. McAra’s car was travelling at between 20 and 25 miles per hour. McAra seemed to be well on his correct side in coming round the corner. Turley’s car was nearer the middle ol the road. McAra’s car was still on its proper side at the point of the impact. Witness heard a bump, and then there was another which turned the front part of McAra’s car round. Turley’s car went on for naif a chain or more, whilst McAra’s car hardly moved a car length. To Mr. Taylor: Plaintiff’s car was not running within three feet of the water table on his correct side a chain before the collision occurred, i Re-examined by Mr Hannan, witness stated that he expected an accident if another car came round the corner, on account of the pace that Turley was going. Andrew Mclntosh, miner, of Brunnerton, said he heard a car approaching from Stillwater at a fairly fast pace. He then heard a screecn of brakes for a couple of seconds and then a collision occurred. He looked out of his window and saw McAra’s car pulled up on its correct side. McAra’s car was about 24 fee't from the corner. The screech of brakes was from the car, coming from Stillwater. This concluded the evidence.

Mr. Taylor quoted authorities relative to Mr. Hannan’s non-suit point, which went to show that there was proprietary interest by virtue of possession of any chattel. He submitted that on the evidence judgment must be for plaintiff, and referred to the evidence of the Constable who stated that the back of Turley’s car was nearer the bank than was the front, which was an indication that it did not come across the road. He relied greatly on the evidence o>' both Smith and Trotter, which he claimed was clear evidence of the position of Turley’s car. Magee, he said, had not seen the first impact.

Mr. Hannan submitted that an employee or a servdnt was not entitled to sue as bailee, but that the master should sue. There was no evidence to show who was the owner of the car. The evidence of Low, that he saw McAra’s car 30 feet away, was corroboration of Mclntosh’s evidence regarding the screeching brakes. He submitted that the most reliable evidence was that of the independent witness, Magee.

Dealing with the non-suit point, the .Magistrate said that he was not prepared to non-suit plaintiff. Although the plaintiff was not prepared to swear that the car was registered in his name, he thought that on plaintiff’s evidence that he had an interest in the car, and was liable for repairs, which was the test. As often happened in this class of case, the evidence of the parties was in hopeless conflict, but tnere was no dispute, however, as to the ultimate and final positions of the cars. The evidence of some witnesses was what might be called post impressions They were perfectly honest witnesses! who came into the Court swearing what they considered was the truth. There was, he said, the evidence of independent witnesses which were more important; also the marks in the roadway from which the Court could derive the necessary inference. There was the frank evidence of McIntosh as to Turley's car coming down the road, but he did not think that, this took them far, unless it was to show that it was Turley’s speed that caused the accident, which suggestion of course had been made. Magee was also an honest witness, but it must be remembered that he was some distance from the corner. He thought Magee was too far away to be able to give the Court an accurate help on the question of measurements. He then referred to Trotter’s evidence in connection with the marks of Turley’s car. He had said that the marks ran parallel right down the road and one yard out from the bank. Constable Rodgers’ conclusion was that McAra had come out fairly sharply and had come back sharply on to the road, indicating a sudden decision on his part. The constable also stated that the car wheels of Turley’s car were nearer the bank than the front wheels. Smith had indicated on the diagram placed before him marks which showed that McAra must have cut the corner. He also said that there appeared to be a break in the continuity of marks which showed that the car had been pulled out. au the evidence as to the marks was consistent with the evidence that McAra did cut the corner, and the camber of the road had a tendency to make motorists cut the corner. Therefore he was of the opinion that McAra did cut the corner. There was some evidence of speed on Turley’s part and also on the part of McAra, but he thought that the accident was caused in McAra cutting the corner. Judgment would be for plaintiff on the claim for the full amount, and judgment would also ’be for plaintiff on the counter claim. Judgment would carry costs on the claim and counter-claim, according to scale.