Actions for Damages

Horowhenua Chronicle, 12 July 1916, Page 2

Actions for Damages

TWO LEVIN OAHES.

At the last sitting of the Levin 5.51. •Court before Mr J. W. Poynton the cases of John Horn v. J. R-. G. Stanseil, a claim for £50 damages and a counter-claim for £47, J. R. G. Stanseil v. John Horn," was heard. The cases arose out of a collision between a motor bicycle and a motor car, the latter owned 'by iStansell. Lengthy evidence was taken and the Magistrate reserved judgment, this came to hand yesterday and read as follows.— These are cross actions, and as the claim is the same, in both cases it was agreed that it be taken once andt -. mitfced in the second case. On tho evidence 1 find the following points proved:— I.—On the night of the 17tli May last the son of Mr Stanseil, one of tho parties, was driving his father's motor car from Levin to his home in Wcraroa. He was nearly at tlho place where he would have to turn to his right to enter the street where Stanseil resides, -when a collision occurred—the subl ject of these aotions. . 2.—The other party to these actions, John Horn, was coming in an opposite direction—from tihe direction of the railway station to Leviin—riding an "Indian" motor bicycle','which, in con. (sequence of tho collision with Stansell's car was seriously damaged. 3.—TSach of the drivers saw the other's vehicle at a distance of five or six chains. Each had proper lights. It was a bright night and there wae a full moon 4.—The. collision took place at a spot. twelve or fifteen .feet nearer to Levin than the position of a certain lamp post which is on the railway Bide of t!he centre of the road. s.—The motor bicycle struck the motor. car a few inches from tlie right band front wheel. ~ 6.:—After the impact the car, being much the heavier of the two bodies, moved forward, pushing the cycle before it, and came to a stop just opposite the lamp post and. at a spot about twelve or fifteen feet from the base of the post to the nearest, that is the left, front wheel of the car. 7.—The road or street where the lamp post is has not parallel sides. There in on angle behind" the lamp post on the railway margin of the road, forming a sort of bay. The lamp post being nearer to the railway *ide than the other, this angle or recess is not noticeable until an observer approaches tlie spot. At a distance of ten or fifteen chains on either 6ide of the lamp jiost, which has a thick base, appears to be on the railway 6ide of the road and not on the road. B.—Both drivers were familiar with the road, and knew of this angle on the railway side of the post. 9.—Vehicles passing along the road do not usually go into this angle and out again behind the lamp post, but continue straight on as if the lamp post were at the side of the road. Only when there is an excess of traffic do they pass on the railway side of the lamp post. " Apart from the evidence, the condition of the road between the lamp post and tihe railway side of the road proves this. 10.—"When the drivers first saw each other, before the accident, each was on his proper side or left-band 6ide of the road. 11.—Horn, seeing the car on the railway Bide of the road tooncluded that- it was going to pass on the railway side of the lamp post. His reason for believing this was that there Was some rough metal on the road, and in ordeiv to avoid this the car would go behind the lamp post. He also sayi that at the moment when the oar was at the place where it would have to turn to the left to go to the back of the lamp post it Bwerved as if to do' so. His cycle wotildi be then fully four or five chains from tihe oar. , I!?.—From a distance of about fifteen feet from the lamp post towards the centre of the road there was at that time a clemr hard road, but, further out there was a strip of rough gravel. From the rough- stones to tflie kerb on the opposite side of the lamp poet (not the railway side kerb) there was a clean hard surface free from broken or rough stones, sufficiently wide for motor care to go along it....... Motor cars coming from the street that Stanseil junior was about to enter came along this clear part. | The disputed) facts are : (a) Horn says just Before tihe collision Stanseil junior negligently turned to his right in 1 Older to'enter the street where he lives and in so doing came right in front of his motor cycle causing the collision. Stanseil junior denies this. He says Horn should have kept to his proper aide and passed along the clear space fiee from rough stones. Instead of doing §o he negligently came along the centre of the road and ran Btraight into the car, turning at the last moment in an endeavour, to avoid it, but too l'ate. (b) Stanseil junior says,he was nearer to the lamp post than the centre of the road when the vehicles collided. Horr. says he (Stanseil junior) was further out and was not. on his proper side at that moment. 1 am asked: by both .parties to draw conclusions from the. nature of the damage to both vehicles and the position of the car when it came to rest, also from the fact that Horn through the impact was thrown over., the wheel and mudguard on to the road to the right of the motor car. It is contended on. behalf of iStansell that when his car came to rest after the shock its front was pointing nearly straight towards the railway station,

and, if m alleged! by Horn, it ; hac turned to the right in front of Kim ii would be in that position, or still mor< turned in that diiecttion, when it cami to rest after the shock near its righl wheel. On behalf of Horn it is urged thai the injuries to Tiis bicycle, especiallj the front wliool, show the side-long oi gracing nature of the blow which would bo inconsistent with a straight end-on collision as related by the other sidie. Again, it is argued that df such a face-to-face collision took place Horn would not have 'been projected over the right front wheel of the car as actually occurred, but would have landed ' in tihe middle of the car or behindi it. It is not altogether safe to draw conclusions from such facts. A road is not a, perfectly plain surface such as is required for theoretical iproblems in niechnnics. The hi eye in was firmly locked to the right front of the car and mu.'h forco had to be used to remove it therefrom. It is obvious tfliat a motor car pushing a large motor bicycle firmly wed;red into the ffont to one side of its centre base line'along a gravel road for some yards, after a sever? collision, would be subject to opposing end varying strains, and might come to rest in any position. Again the injuries to the bicycle would be consistent with Horn having suddenly turned to iiis left at the last moment, to try to get past the. car. He wouldl strike it at the same angle as he would had it been tho car that turned, and not the cycle; and this alleged sudden turn to the left by him would account for his being thrown over the right-hand mudguard af the oar on to the road, instead of into the car. Theoretically, the car on coming to a standstill should have been in a« position with its centre line across tho direction of the road instead of being nearly parallel to it as it undoubtedly was, if Horn's story is true that it turned suddenly to its I right before he struck it. It would

i UCJ.UI.U lie J3bJ.UU.IW It. 110 WUUItJ -the-rGad position after such a tremenstill further be displaced to an acrossdous blow* At first it appeared >Eo me tliat _ neither party couldi recover in these Cases. The law is that if both drivers aro equally to blame, such as driving in the centre 'of the road without lights, on a dark night, and an accident occurs, neither is liable to the other. In ~> this Case it seems strange that in a clear moonlight night —with proper lights on both vehicles— the accident should have ocourred at all. It seems clear to me, however, on further consideration of the evidence: (1) That Horn could not hava been keeping a proper look-out after first seeing the car, and hia conviction that it was going to Pbehind the lamppost, lulled him into temporary mattenidcMk . m (2) That if the lamp-post is to be regarded as the side of the road (and in the evidence it is shown that practically all the traffic passes on the outside—the side furtlhe9t .from the railway—and therefore it must be so considered), then fitansell. although twelve or fifteen feet from it, was not on the wrong side of the road. (3) There was abundant room be- 1 tween the 'position of the motor car and the kerb on its right (Horn's left), for him to have passed the oar safely had he been exercising ordinary vigilance. (4) That in not keeping to his left nnd so avoiding the risk of accident he was negligent. Judgment will be for Stamsell. as pin in tiff" fSr £35 and costs of court, witnesses' expenses nnd., solicitor's fee. and in the cross action in which he j is dofpoidant judgment will be for I him with solicitor'# costs only. i Mr. W. S. Park appeared for Stansell and Mr. Kirk for Horn.