CROSSING ACCIDENT

King Country Chronicle, Volume XXVIII, Issue 4634, 11 December 1934, Page 4

CROSSING ACCIDENT

RAILWAY CLAIM DAMAGES. £4O CLAIM UPHELD. An echo of the collision between a lorry driven by R. E. Steele and a railway engine at the crossing north of Te Kuiti in November, 1933, was heard in the Court before Mr. J. H. Luxford, S.M. this morning, when the Railways Board claimed £4O from Steele. Mr. Gillies appeared for the Railway Department. Mr. Gillies pointed out that at a hearing after the accident Steele was convicted of negligent driving. Sergeant Paine v who was in charge of the case, made an application for damages. This was very properly refused at the time —Steele was still in hospital and had lost his livelihood in his truck.

"Why do the Department claim £4O now when they claimed £23 before?" asked the defendant. "I understood that the claim was wiped out at the time."

The Magistrate pointed out that the Department had full rights to alter their claim. Mr. Gillies contended that failing to keep a viligant lookout, as the charge on which the defendant was convicted proved to be upon investigation of Court records, constituted negligence. E. W. Durbridge, S. G. Sergeant, D. A. Munroe, and F. Pohlen gave evidence in regard to the damage sustained to railway property as a result of the collision, this including £l6 16s for loss of profit owing to the engine being out of use for two days. J. T. K. Dodds said the engine was going" at the normal timetable speed of 30 miles an hour. Defendant's counsel admitted the damages, but contended that no negligence had been displayed. R. E. Steele said he had been driving since 1914 and had never had an accident until the four-months-old lorry struck the train. Two boys oh bicycles made him hesitate which road to take —he meant to take the road past the Shell depot. Witness then went across the line, saw the train, accelerated, and was struck back of the centre of the truck. _ A high hedge, which was cut down immediately after the accident, obscured his view of the line. The lorry was travelling about 10 miles an hour. To Mr. Gillies he admitted that the first time he saw the engine was when his bonnet was over the line. The Magistrate said there was a simple explanation to the case though it did not help the driver. The latter was completely engrossed in goingdown the side road past the Shell dump, was blocked in this by cyclists, and decided at the minute to go the railway line. He had not taken into accou'nt any possibility of danger, and his action constituted negligence.

Judgment against defendant for £4O was given, and he was ordered to pay costs.