A COLLISION CASE.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 29 July 1924, Page 6

A COLLISION CASE.

In the. Magistrate’s Court- at Stratford yesterday before Mr. A. M. Mowlem, S.M., an action for £2OO was heard in which William Curd, carrier, of Stratford, claimed damages against the Stratford County Council for damage caused by a county lorry, driven by one Hill, a county employee, colliding with plaintiff’s lorry near the junction of the East- Road and Gordon Road, beyond Toko. Mr. P. O’Dea, of Ilawera (with h.im Mr. N. H. Moss) appeared for plaintiff and Mr. A. Coleman for the defendant county. The case, as outlined by Mr. O’Dea for the plaintiff, was that on the 18th of March last plaintiff Curd was driving his lorry with passengers, and also crockery for the caterers to the Tututawa sports. At a bend in the road near where the Gordon Road joins the East Road, plaintiff saw the county lorry coming towards hirii. The lorry was returning empty and was evidently running downhill out of gear intending to run to the metal pit.on the Gordon Road. Plaintiff immediately swung to his correct side, hut defendant’s driver, tilththe evident- intention of running into the Gordon Road, swung to his wrong side, and a- collision happened which drove plaintiff’s lorry, which wa& practically at a standstill, back several yards and badly damaged it. Mr. O’Dea said lie could hardly realise what, defence could be put up in such a case. There were, of course," occasions when a man would be justified in going to his wrong side, but this' was not one of them., There had been one such case in Taranaki, the, Eltham case of Fever r. Booker, a much litigated ease, three reports of which were in the New Zealand Law Reports, but in that ease the pl-aintiff was on his correct side, the defendant continuing on his wrong side and approaching him on the wrong side for several chains. The plaintiff at the last minute swung to his wrong side to avoid an accident, ■ but the defendant at the same instant swung to his correct side, and the cars met in the .middle of the road. .The Magistrate (the late Mr. Bailey) held that plaintiff should have kept to his correct side, hut the Supreme Court held differently. There was no sudden emergency like that, in the. present case. When the plaintiff Curd rounded the corner and swung over to his left the defendant was more: than two- chains away, and yet although plaintiff had actually got so far to his left that- his left front, wheel was over on the grass at the- side of the road he was struck by defendant. It was clearly a- ease d the defendant having lost his head. Mr. Coleman intimated that the defence would he that plaintiff on roundmg the comer was so near the fence ?" ..b'fi-.Avfohg side that defendant thought lie would continue on the wrong side.

The Magistrate pointed out that tneie could be no right or wrong side M that point, as the defendant was .wo or three chains away. The evidence had not concluded when the ■ouit adjourned. . A further point- made for the plaintiff was that there was a heavy onus ■m a driver who was intending to proceed from a .side road on to a main road, or vice versa, He must keep a more vigilant look-out than the man who- was proceeding straight along on the mam road. In other words, side + a of C mi V st S lve wa y to main c ’ , a V d a reeeilt case ‘ decided by the Scotch courts was cited bv counsel in support of this proposition.