COLOMBO STREET CROSSING.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXXIII, Issue 15862, 27 February 1912, Page 5

COLOMBO STREET CROSSING.

A MOTOR ACCIDENT SEQUEL.

CASE BEFORE SUPREME COURT.

A medical man and a motcr-car were the central figures ill a case before his Honor Mr Justice Denniston at tbo Supreme Court yesterday, when Dr William Frederick Browne claimed the sum of £305 as damages from the Railway Department for injuries to himself and damage to his motor-car as the result of a collision with trucks at the Colombo Street crossing on the night of July 19, 1911. . . Plaintiff alleged that the collision had been solely due to negligence on the part of the defendants. The defence was a denial of negligence, and a legal defence that tho. Department was not responsible for accidents caused by the public passing over such crossings. Mr Berwick appeared for the plaintiff and Mr T. W. Stringer, K.C., conducted tlie case for the Crown.

The petition set forth that tho plaintiff, William Frederick Browne, on July 19, 1911, bad been driving bis motor-car and had turned out of Moorhouse Avenue into Colombo Street with a view to proceeding south along Colombo Street. As ho neared the railway crossing he noticed that a green light was being shown by tho railway crossing-keeper and at once pulled up. At that time some trucks wore being shunted, and when tho trucks had passed, the crossing-keeper covered his light to signal traffic Kb cross. Plaintiff moved forward in his car and almost immediately some further trucks crossed the road and struck plaintiff’s car, damaging it to the extent of £259. Plaintiff, at the time of the accident, had been carrying two head lights, two side lights and one tail light. . William Frederick Browne, a medical practitioner and tho plaintiff in the case, said that he dwelt in Sydenham and had passed over the Colombo Street crossing a dozen times each day during the past J four years. Witness detailed the accident as set forth in the statement of claim, adding that the night in question had been dark and foggy and that tho trucks had carried no lights. The trucks had carried witness’s car thirty yards toward the Christchurch Railway Station, and had it not been for the motor being caught by a post at the side of the rails, in all probability, it would have been dragged underneath the trucks, which were not under control. Plaintiff had his back twisted by the accident and had been dazed by the shock. The car bad been in the repairer’s hands for thirty days, during which time plaintiff had had to hire a car at the ratenf £1 a day. After tho accident plaintiff had asked the cross-ing-keeper why he had not given notice that more trucks were coming but had received no answer. , Cross-examined by Mr Stringer, witness said that the crossing-keeper had completely covered the green light before tho motor moved forward. Hq was aware that at the conclusion of shunting operations the crossing-keeper, as a rule, passed into his sentry-box, but stated that he generally had to wait until all traffic had passed. Randolf King, a commercial traveller, and George Irving M’Ewen, a pastrycook, gavo corroborative, evidence as to the details of the accident. George Edward Good gave evidence as to the distances between the lines at the crossing and their.position. He stated that it had been frequently noticed by the public that there was danger if a train were coming in on the South line, as immediately the warning was lifted the people proceeded to cross the lino, the crossing-keeper facing the people proceeding towards him. Without warning, on the other set of lines, shunting operations would he proceeding, and. the public frequently incurred danger owing to these shunting operations. The crossingkeeper, as a, rulo, turw.d the lamp towards his body as an indication that the traffic could proceed, and that was looked upon by the public as an indication that the line was clear. Since the accident new lights had replaced two of the ones which had been 111 use at the time of the accident. James Ernest Rule, motor expert and mechanical engineer, said that lie had repaired Dr Browne’s .car after the accident. In his opinion the depreciation to the car since the accidon u would amount to at least -199. The chassis had b66n st-raincu and could not be repaired owing to lack of appliance's. _. , During the luncheon adjournment the Court vsited the scene of the accident. . Tho case for the plaintiff was then declared closed and Mr Stringer called evidence. . , . Alexander Morrison, cngine-dnvoi, stated that he had been stopped by the crossiug-keepor before the collision. A “ string”’ of trucks drawn by one engine went over tho crossing, aim then Dr Browne’s motor-car appeared, j ust as the tail-end of the trucks passea the roadway. The doctor pulled up momentarily, and then moved on very slowly. Witness called out. Whoa, Doctor,” but did not think that the plaintiff heard him. Witness could see that more trucks were coming. Jeremiah Shirley stated that lie bad bean crossing-keeper at tho Colombo. Street crossing for about one'month previous to the accident. Just betore the accident ho had taken up his position in the centre of the crossing, l- 110 alarm bells rang before, witness took up his position. Shunting was ben g canned out. The doctor came up as the bells were ringing, and witness stopped him. After the doctor stopped tho first lot of trucks wore kieKtd ” past. Witness was watching tor the second lot of trucks. In the time the doctor had moved 011. '' itness called to plaintiff to stop, but ou that time it was fairly, noisy, and no might not have heard him . Iho ‘dp 1 bell was ringing all the time. The first truck struck tho car and earner >t along to the post, which turned it orr the line. Witness had not given any indication that traffic «>ula pass. Traffic was expected to wait until the crossing-keeper left the road\ia„v fore passing over the rails. / T To Mr Beswiek: The road wan clear when plaintiff moved on, though the trucks could be seen approaching. . Leonard Bruce Adams, Patrick and Jolm Conlon also gave evidence, dealing mainly with the shuntmS ations which caused the accident-. This closed tho caso for the defence, and counsel addressed his Honor* Decision was reserved,