MOTOR COLLISION

Hokitika Guardian, 2 November 1932, Page 2

MOTOR COLLISION

CLAIM AND COUNTER-CLAIM

GREYMOUTH, November 1

; As the result of a collision between a motor-car and a motor-10.-ry, which occurred about 7 p.m. on/May 28 last, on the main highway near Kamaka, legal proceedings were taken 'by the parties concerned, to-day, at the Magistrate’s Court, before Mr W. Meldi-um, iS.M,

The plaintiff, - Michael Maloney, of Ahaura (Mr T. F. Brosnan), claimed jt34 12?,' against the separate estate of Caroline Farrell, of Nelson Creek (Air J. W. Hannan). 'He alleged that. Thomas Farrell, while in the employ of defendant, drove a motor-lorry negligently and failed to keep ,a proper' look-out, so that the Jerry collided with plaintiffs (far. /Plaintiff therefore'' claimed £34 12s (special damages, cost of repairing car, £24 12s, and general damages for depreciation, £10). Defendant counter-claimed for £5 7a 4d (cost of repairs £2 17s 4d, cost of bringing lorry to Greymouth for repairs, and loss of use of lorry for one day, *.£2 10s). /The . /counter-claim alleged that plaintiff unskilfully and negligently drove his car, thus causing the collision.

In delivering judgment, the S.M. said that, like most motor accidents, • this was the result of a certain nmountof negligence. The question to decide was as to whether either of the parties could be saddled with special negligence, rendering him liable for the ■ damage done. Mr Meldrum reviewed the evidence, and pointed out that the road was very narrow. The onus was upon both drivers, to take special pains to see whether the road was clear, before they tried t 0 pas. In his opinion, both drivers had failed to discharge that onus, and negligence must be attached to them both. In that case neither was entitled .to succeed against the other. He r gave judgment for plaintiff on the claim, and for defendant on the . counter-claim, each party ,to pay its own costs.