CLAIM FOLLOWS COLLISION.

Horowhenua Chronicle, 18 March 1938, Page 8

CLAIM FOLLOWS COLLISION.

♦ TURNING AT INTERSECTIONS. AN INTERESTING JUDGMENT. As the result of a collision at the intersection of Queen and Oxford Streets on the evening of October I4th last, a claim for £4 18s, representing the cost of repairs to one of the vehicles involved, was heard by Mr. J. L. Stout, S.M., in the Levin Court yesterday. The plaintiff was W. P. Pollings, for whom Mr. J. P. M, Bertram appeared, and the defendant was 0. C. Lagor, whose counsel was Mr. N. M. Thomson. In opening the proceedings, Mr. Bertram said that plaintiff was proceeding eastwards along Queen Street, while defendant was travelling northwards along Oxford Street, with the intention of turning at the intersection and going back through the town. On reaching the intersection, defendant turned into Queen Street and completely misled plaintiff, with the result that a collision occurred. Plaintiff told the Court that he left his office in Queen Street about 8 p.m, and proceeded the few feet towards Oxford Street at about 10 m.p.h. On approaching the intersection he saw defendant’s ear coming up on his right and slowed down preparatory to giving way to him if he had crossed the intersection. At the intersection defendant made a distinct turn to his left, as if he was going down Queen Street. Witness then observed that he was turning round, with the intention of going back along Oxford Street. He saw that a collision was inevitable and brought his car to a standstill. He did not observe defendant give any indication, after turning into Queen Street, that he was going to sweep round. After the accident defendant admitted not having seen witness until a few feet from the point of impact, but blamed -witness for the accident. To Mr. Bertram plaintiff said he thought that when defendant turned into Queen Street he forfeited his right to the protection of the righthand rule. A passenger in plaintiff’s car, Mr. J. F. Gavin, gave corroborative evidence, stating also that defendant admitted not seeing plaintiff until near the point of impact. Robert G. Henderson, who was standing on the footpath in the vicinity at the time of the accident, testified to his having seen defendant turn into Queen Street and forming the impression that he was going down the street. He said he then saw defendant’s car swing suddenly to the right and his headlights brought the plaintiff’s car into view.

Mr. Thomson suggested that plaintiff 1 should be non-suited. In doing so ho ' pointed out that the borough by-law 1 required motorists to turn at the intersection and it was necessary for them to divert their course slightly into * Queen Street to make the turn. Defendant was making the turn, a manoeu- ' vre which was habitually done. . His Worship did not agree to this 1 course, , holding that defendant could not go and run into plaintiff, and ’ ordered the defendant’s evidence to be 3 called. Defendant said that as he approach--5 ed the intersection he sounded his horn ’ and held his hand out to indicate that ‘ he was turning until he had to actually use both hands to execute the turn. He did not observe plaintiff’s car until it came into the beam of his lights. He then applied his brakes, but a collision ! lwas unavoidable. It had been necessary for him to deflect a little into Queen Street on account of the tree at the i intersection ahd cars parked at the side of the road. It was not a complete turn 1 into Queen Street, but only a deflection to the left, Allan Galpin, who was also in the vicinity at the time of the mishap, said he saw defendant’s car and it had only been deflected slightly into Queen Street in order to make the turn. This was done very frequently at the intersection. Mr. Thomson pointed out that it was obvious that plaintiff had made a mistake by erroneously presuming that de- 1 fendant was going down Queen Street, while in point of fact he was making a natural turn. It was not necessary for defendant to contend that plaintiff had been negligent, but he Tailed to see why defendant should be charged with negligence, in view of the fact that plaintiff had made a mistake. Counsel submitted that defendant could not claim against plaintiff, nor could plaintiff claim against defendant. In giving judgment in favour of, ‘plaintiff for the amount claimed and £2 14s costs, His Worship held that the fact that defendant came round the tree and into Queen Street as far as the Oxford Street curb had misled plaintiff. Under those circumstances defendant should have observed plaintiff, and the fact that he did not do this was evidence of negligence. Had he seen plaintiff he could have stopped before the collision. If a motorist was going to deflect the course of his car in making a turn at an intersection then the right-hand rule did not apply. His Worship expressed the opinion that the tree should be removed and that cars be prevented from parking near the corner, though he did not see that the latter “could .greatly affect the position as there was a ‘no parking” area beside the tree. However, had the tree not been there, the accident would have been avoided.