CARS IN COLLISION.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVI, 30 September 1926, Page 7

CARS IN COLLISION.

SEQUEL IN COURT

NEGLIGENT DRIVING ALLEGED

A collision which occurred between two motor cars on the Alanawapou bridge, Alain South road, on the morning of August 24, resulted in a charge of negligent driving being preferred under the Alotor Vehicles Act in the Magistrate’s Court at Hawera to-day against one of the drivers, Thomas Ballingall, of. Wanganui. The prosecution was conducted before Afr J. S. Barton, S.Af., by Sergeant J. Henry. Defendant, who pleaded not guilty, was represented by Air N. R. Bain, of Wanganui.

Outlining the circumstances. Sergeant Henry explained that on the morning mentioned Air L. G. Alorris, driving a five-seater car, was returning from Hawera to his home at Kakaramea. When close to the Alanawapou bridge at about 10.30 a.m. he had seen another four or five-seater car moving towards the bridge from the other side. Alorris entered the bridge while the other car was still some distance from the opposite end. AVhile he was crossing it seemed that the other car was likely to come on, so he pulled up. The other car continued, and a head-on collision occurred while Alorris’s car was stationary. Defendant, who drove the other car, had! stated 1 that the brakes had refused to act. The prosecution would contend that in taking a car with defective brakes on a. public highway defendant had been guilty of negligence. ESTIMATES OF SPEED. In evidence, Lewis George Morris corroborated the account given by t-lie sergeant. He further explained that the other car was too feet away when he brought his vehicle to a standstill. He first saw the other car when it was about 75 yards away. It was descending the hill and appeared to he travelling at a fast pace. He estimated the damage to his car at £2O. Ballingall, who had subsequently gone to Hawera with witness in another car, had stated 1 .he would arrange to defray the exuenses of repairing witness’s car. Ballingall’s car was also damaged, and both had' to be towed from the scene. He considered that Balliugall’s car had been responsible for the collision. There was not sufficient room for the. to have passed on the bridge. When witness first saw it the other car was travelling at about 40 miles an hour, but when the collision occurred it had lessened speed to about 15 or 20 miles an hour. Air Bain : You were at the AVan garni i end of the bridge when the other car hit you?—(Witness: Yes. Did he strike your- head-on ?—Yes. I suggest to you that Afr Ballingall, when approaching the bridge, tried to swing to the side, and vou should have also tried to get clear of the bridge and reach the side, of the road. —lt would have been suicidal for me to try to get clear of the bridge, and so I' stopped I was first on the

bridge. Considering that All* Balhnga.ll s brakes failed to act and that he stopped where he did. do you consider he was guilty of driving the car in a, grossly negligent manner? —I couldn’t sav that, but ns the car was fitted with four wheel brakes he should' have h©cn able to stop sooner.

During further cross-examination witness, said he had passed: a service car about 70 yards on' the Hawera. side of the bridge. He did not know that the service- car had overtaken ■•and nassed Ballingall’s car after the latter had left the ton of the hill. He still thought that when he first saw it defendant’s car was travelling at about 40 miles an. hour. Re-examined by Sergeant Henry, witness stated’ that the road was: dangerous at this point. necessitating particular care in driving. CONDITION OF BRAKES. Opening the defence, Air Bain first called evidence as to the condition of the brakes. Ronald Joseph Hartill, motor garage foreman, said he had found that the foot brake of defendant’s car would just grin the wheels, while the emergency brake was in, a, similar condition.' From the damage to the cars he estimated that the speed of the moving on© was not very fast—probably 10 miles an hour.

To Sergeant Henrv: The cars were of about equal weiglit. He "thought that a car travelling at 10 miles an hour meeting a- stationary car would cause the damage sustained in the oresent accident. If the speed had been greater witness would have expected further damage. A car fitted with four wheel brakes travelling at 30 miles an hour, with a load of four men, could hardly pull up in the space between the bridge and l the bend on its Wanganui side, som© 75 yards distant. Travelling at 20 mi]es an hour, the car should pull up in three or four car lengths. Reverting to the state of the brakes of the car driven by the defendant, witness said they were satisfactory for general use, but not sufficient for an emergency.

Further examined! by Mr Bain, witness said that the lamps of the defendant’s car were not broken.

Traversing the general lines of the defence, counsel referred to a discrepancy in the estimates of speed as given by the witness Morris. In evidence Morris ha,d mentioned an approximate speed of 40 miles an hour, yet in his written statement formerly given he had referred to a speed- of 20 to 25 miles an hour only. In the general definition of the particular portion of the Act it referred to negligence in such cases as driving either negligently or recklessly. The two terms for the purpose of criminal proceedings could be regarded as synonymousj a.ix<± it> was -to fcxf inferred) th© class of offence which would involve criminal liability was culpable negligence. In the case before the court, however, it would be claimed that culpable negligence could not-he attributed to defendant. The facts of the case were that defendant- had taken two and a quarter hours to travel from Wanganui to the scene of the mishap. He was an experienced driver, and was accompanied by three persons who were similarly experienced. They agreed that th© car was well under control throughout the journey, and descending the Manawapou hill was not travelling beyond 20 miles an hour. AVhen defendant had seen the other car on- the bridge he had endeavoured to stop and wait for it to pass. Though no defect had been previously noted in the brakes, it was then found that, though they appreciably checked the speed, they were not strong enough to stop the car in. the distance allowed. But for the failure of the brake to function, which could not have been for seen by defendant-, the collision would not ha-ve occurred. The defendant, in evidence, stated that during the trip on which the accident occurred he did not travel faster than 35 -miles per hour. Just after the beginning of the descent of the hill a -service car overtook and .passed witness’s ear. The hill was

descended at about 20 males: per hour. W itness: was about 50 yards from the , bridge when he first saw Alorris’s car. He immediately applied, his brakes, and although the speed was considerab y slackened he found h© could, not absolutely stop the car, and it was a case of running either into the river or the car of .Morris. The journey from. Wanganui to the bridge had taken, two. hours and a quarter, the distance being about 53 moles. Just before the collision the speed coui’d not hav© been more than ten miles per. hour. The accident was purely due to failure of the brakes. - Cross-examined by Sergeant He my, witness said he had been driving a car for .seven years. He was positive that his speed down th© hill had not’ been great, and as he was not due in HaI wera for over an hour after the time of the accident he was not hurrying. The Alanawapou hill wa® not the worst hill on the road between AVanganui and Hawera, the Tongahoe hill being quite as difficult to negotiate. AVitness did not think that he had applied his hand-break, although he had don© practically evervting possible to avoid the accident. . Andrew Doig, chemist, of AVanganui, a passenger in the car, and an ©xperiI enced motorist, said that the defendant had. driven extremely carefully over the whole of the journey. The speed down the hill had not been more than 20 mile® .per hour, the car being held in check. The speed at the moment of the impact was not more than five or six* lilies per hour. After the accident witness examined the other car and found that it had not been moved -back an inch, while if the speed had been over 20 miles per hour it would certainly have been moved hack. In view of the expert evidence, he did not think the application of the bandbrake would hav© avoided the accident. Cross-examined by the sergeant, witness contended that an experienced motorist could judge fairly accurato'y the speed of a car. * David Aleldrum, another passenger, in defendant’s car, gave corroborative evidence. After -summing up- the evidence', the magistrate dismissed the information He considered that the element of ©need, which must enter into- the question of a conviction, was not present, and, taking all the facts into consideration, he must give the benefit of the doubt to defendant.