MOTOR MISHAP.

Hawera Star, Volume XLV, 12 November 1925, Page 4

MOTOR MISHAP.

PARTIES IN COURT. j ACTION FOR DAMAGES. At the Hawera Magistrate’s Court yesterday, -Matthew Larnglands sought to recover from Oswald Turner the sum of £47 15s by way of damages arising out of a motor mishap at Manaia in. June, which resulted in damage being caused to -Langland’s car through collision with a. tree. Mr F. C. iSpratt appeared- for the plaintiff, and Mr R. H. Quilliam, of New Plymouth, for the defendant.

Mr Spratt said that the plaintiff had just left Manaia qnd was travelling in the direction of Kaupokonui. Aa ha approached a stock route corner he: was catching upon- the defendant, who was travelling at about 12 miles per hour. Plaintiff sounded his horn and the other car swerved off to the left as though, tjo left him, pass, but when , the ears were almost abreast defend* ant swerved to the right, it transpiring that Turner’s intention, was to turn into the stock route running to the right. Defendant failed to make any sign for the. benefit of traffic coming from the rear, and when the plaintiff saw what tihe position was he took a parallel track to the turning car andran into a tree stump on the side-, of the road. -For the defence it was stated that Turner heard no horn sounded, and the plaintiff alone was responsible- for the accident. Further, if the defendant was guilty of negligence, then the plaintiff was also guilty of contributory negligence, and he could not recover. The only thing that could be held against the defendant was that he failed to signal when making the turn. It seemed to be assumed by Mr Spratt that there was a liability on drivers to signal in such eases. As a matter of fact there was no rule, although.it was true that in a number of boroughs there was a by-law specifying that drivers, should signal. The incident under review, however, occurred on a eountrv road, and viewed in that light it was significant that the Taranaki joint by-laws, made, as recently as 1921, made no provision for drivers signalling their intended movements. The by-laws, however, contained a provision that, no person, should fail to properly sound a horn giving due warning of his approach when overtaking traffic' or approaching an intersection. As far as the plaintiff was concerned, several suggestions of negligence could be made. He was negligent in driving so close to Turner’s car, lie attempted to pass on an intersection, and he, attempted to pass without an invitation. An invitation would have been given if Turner ’s car had moved to the left and had 1 continued along on the left hand •side of the road, but the plaintiff’s own witness had- made it clear that Turner swerved to the left and then immediately to till e right without giving such an invitation. Further, the fact that Langland’s. car .travelled thirty-four yards from tlie point- where the danger arose to the tree stump was evidence of excessive speed. The evidence did not reach finality, and the case was adjourned for a fortnight.