RAGE DAY ACCIDENT

Matamata Record, Volume XIX, Issue 1751, 27 July 1936, Page 5

RAGE DAY ACCIDENT

f OMAHINE BRIDGE [ COLLISION [ Claim for Damages A collision between two motorpars on the Omahine bridge on the "Matamata-Tauranga road last Matajnata race day, was the cause of a (civil case which occupied the attention of the Magistrate, Mr. S. L. Paterson, in the Matamata Court on Thursday. . Plaintiff, J. J. Malloy, of Te Poi, /claimed for damages to his car totalling £l7 17s and costs, holding that defendant, David Holmes, of (Tauranga, failed to keep a proper lookout, that he drove at a speed jwhich prevented him pulling up his par to a standstill within half the length of the clear road, and that he drove at an excessive speed. Mr. Lusk, of Tauranga, appeared for plaintiff, and ‘Mr. G. G. Bell, of Matamata, for defendant. Plaintiff’s Evidence The plaintiff, John Joseph Malloy, school teacher, of Te . Poi, stated that the accident occurred about 7 p.m. and visibility was good. He was travelling very slowly towards Matamata and he saw ...defendant about eight chains on the other side of the bridge. He would not say defendant was travelling at an excessive speed. He lost sight of defendant just on the bridge. Just before the accident he noticed defendant but did not think he would have come on. After the accident there were skid marks about eight yards back from the bridge, showing where defendant had braked his car. Witness said he had been driving since 1918 and had never previously had an accident.

Cross-examined, witness said he could not estimate his speed in mileage per hour as he did not look at the speedometer. However, he travelled slowly because of loose shingle. Witness did not agree that the approach ,on the Tauranga side was safer than the Matamata side. Wit-, ness said he had not pulled up because her was bn the bridge long Jjgfdre the defendant, and because there, was a good crossing place on defendant’s: side, . Witness said he braked his car hard, but there were no marks because of his slow speed. After momentarily losing sight of defendant, witness had later seen him as he came on to the bridge. Witness had told defendant he had no right coming on to the bridge when witness was two-thirds the way over. At the moment of impact his brakes were hard on. It Would be about three yards before the impact when he saw defendant. He expected defendant to observe the ordinary precautions which 99 .out of 100 motorists would observe. ’ Re-examined, witness said the rslcid mark went back to a blind spot Where he could not see defendant. To the Magistrate, witness said that when he saw defendant come on bo the bridge he was halfway'over the bridge. . If he had applied his brakes the second he saw defendant he thought the accident would have still happened owing to the speed of defendant. ! Elizabeth Alice Malloy, wife of plaintff, corroborated most of her husband’s evidence. They were almost off the bridge when the collision occurred. Their speed had been, •she thought, an ordinary one of •about 30 miles per hour. Cross-examined, witness said that in her opinion Holmes was not near the bridge when they entered it. £>he admitted she was not clear as To distance. Her husband had not lost his head. A suggestion of a non-suit was disallowed by the Magistrate. Evidence by Arthur Connew, of Auckland, another car driver who had appeared on the scene, was put in by plaintiff’s' counsel, the evidence having been taken in Auckland.

j Commenting on it, Mr. Bell, for 'defendant, pointed out that it was a •physical impossibility for this witness to have seen the accident from half a mile back. Other apparently - conflicting statements were noted by counsel, who raised doubts : as to the credibility of the witness. A later statement mentioned that Holmes had said that he had applied his brakes, while Malloy had said he had come on. Defendant's Case David Holmes, defendant, said he was returning, to Tauranga about 7 p.m. The light was good but there was a drizzle about the time of the f : accident.

His counsel referred to the fact that a charge of excessive speed had been withdrawn, when the Magis-

trate said in spite of this he was not satisfied as a ten-yard skid pointed to speed. Continuing, defendant estimated his speed at about 15 miles an hour. Witness said he first saw plaintiff’s car as he turned the corner. He jammed on his brakes and at the time of the accident his own car might have about stopped. . Witness then detailed what happened at the time of the accident and how he attended to a passenger, named Brown, before getting out, and also conversation with Malloy. Plaintiff’s car was not on the bridge when witness first saw it, and if plaintiff had applied his brakes then a car could have been placed between them. Cross-examined, witness said the 10 yards skid-mark was measured from the front of the car. Witness agreed the side-members of the bridge might block plaintiff’s view for a time. His car had two wheel brakes. In his opinion plaintiff’s car was right off the bridge and travelled 22 yards, while defendant travelled eight yards. Charles Brown, of Tauranga, stated he was a passenger in defendant’s car. Holmes was a careful driver and was driving at a reasonable pace. Malloy was coming round the bend at a fast pace when Holmes was 10 or 12 yards from the bridge. Holmes jammed on his brakes but Malloy came on. . Witness was injured and knew no more. Cross-examined, witness persisted in his statement that Malloy was near the bend when Holmes was only 10 or 12 yards from the bridge.. The Magistrate: It might have been Connew’s car he saw. John Harold Conder, of Matamata, he sat in the back , seat of Holmes’ "car at the- time of the accident. It would be;-unsafe to drive a car at speed round the bends near the bridge. He was quite sure Malloy’s car was off the bridge when they first. saw it. Malloy had said that any man with a grain of sense would have pulled up, meaning defendant. Cross-examined,; witness said fthe skid-marks were locked-wheel marks, but Holmes was not travelling fast. Magistrate Sums Up In summing up, the Magistrate said that plaintiff's evidence fitted in more than did defendant’s with that of the only independent witness, Connew. _ The claim would be allowed. Subsequently damages as quoted aboV'e, pliis costs, were awarded.