KAPONOA COLLISION.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVII, 15 August 1928, Page 6

KAPONOA COLLISION.

TUCK v. EBERUA.RDT. JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF.

The sequel to a coll'i's'lon between a 'motor cycle and a motor car on the Eltham Road on November '6, 1927, was heard at the Blthain iCourt yesterday, when Mr R. W. Tate, S.M. o-ave judgment for the plaintiff: in ithe° ease, Nelson Tuclc, versus Edward Eberhardt, being • a claim for £2OO, heard at Eltham. on June 19. •Special damages were claimed os follows: Hospital 'charges £SO 13s 6d, medical expenses £1 T-s, repiairs to cycle £lO, loss of wages from November 6, 1027, to April 30, 1938, £lßß' 2s 6d; total £179 17s. . . Mr O’Don appeared for the plainfill and Mr R. H. Quilliam for defendant. - , The Magistrate in the course ox Ins judgment said: On November G, 1», the plaintiff was riding his motor cycle with a bov (Pat O ’Donoghue) behind him, just* outside Ivapongia, in -the direction of Eltham. Ahead of him, were two cyclists on push bicycles, and ahead of them was Hammersley’s car and ahead of Hammersley the defendant’s car. The vehicles and s-nne children walking on the road or on the side of -the road, were all proceeding in the same direction. The defendant had seen the cars leave the church and proceed up the road. The defendant says “there was nothing eoming from Eltham, all 1 had to l’ook out for was the vehicles in front.” I am satisfied that Jhe could sco alidad of the cars and could have seen any traffic coining from Eltham. He parsed the cyclists and approached the nearest car (Hammersley’s). That then obscured the view of defendant’s ciar ahead, but lie know it was there. ‘He decided to pass the cars. He did hot sound his horn. He proceeded oht from behind Hammersley’s -ear, passed it, and crashed into the defendant’s ciar, which had stopped or was just stopping on the incorrect side of the road. The defendant bad decided to give a lift to some girls walking on the side of the road, and he crossed to his incorrect side of the road and stopped there for that purpose, with his right wheels off the tarred .portion of the road. The plaintiff says that he was five to ten yards behind Hammersley’s car when he put on pace to pass it. I have no roast)n to doubt that. There is no evidence beyond the evidence of young Hammersley, which I disregard as unreliable as to the portion of the road Hammersley’s tear was occupying, but it is improbable that it was on the left. In 1927 traffic always used the 'middle of the road. Whether in the middle or on the left of the -middle the plaintiff’s view of the defendant’s car and its change of direction would be -eompletelv obscured. When the plaintiff cleared the rear of Il'ammefsley’s ear, the defendant’s car was about half a chain away. I am satisfied it was not further distant. The defendant, an 'obviously honest witness, says that Hammersley’s car passed him at -the same time as the plaintiff’s cycle Struck his car. In these 'circumstances it was not practicable for the plaintiff •to have .passed between the tw<o ears. -The speed of none of the vehicles was excessive. Hammersley was proceeding at from 15 to '2O miles per hour,'and the plaintiff accelerated to a sufficient speed to pass him. ‘The cause of the collision was the action of the defendant in crossing t : o ’his incorrect, side of the read and Mopping there. In my opinion the plaintiff was justified in passing Hamipersiley!He know that no traffic was approaching from the opposite direction, and ho had no reason to anticipate, that the defendant would change direction and stop as he did. It is true that he did not .sound his horn, but if he had done so it, would not have affected the position. Once he had cleared the rear of ilfammerslev’s ear, he could do n‘othing to avert the collision. I cannot find that he was guilty of any negligence contributing to the accident, and think he is entitled to judgment. Judgment is for plaintiff for £2OO and costs according to scale (£ls 11s). Security for appeal was fixed at ten guineas.