DAMAGES AWARDED

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLIX, Issue 236, 4 September 1929, Page 3

DAMAGES AWARDED

/ SEQUEL JO COLLISION. ON ASHHURST ROAD. A motor collision on the AshhurstPoliangina Road on June 11 had its sequel m the Magistrate’s Court, yesterday, before Mr J. L. Stout, S.M., when Mrs Eileen Annie Spelman, of Ashhurst, proceeded against H. Harper, farmer, of Ashnurst, claiming damages. Plaintiff alleged that defendant had so negligently and unskilfully driven a motor-car that it had collided with a car in which plaintiff was travelling. It was alicgcd that defendant had failed to keep a proper look-out, had driven his car on the wrong side of the road, and had failed to steer clear of the car in which plaintiff was riding. It was further stated that, as the result of the collision, defendant had sustained serious injuries to her head and had been confined to a hospital for two weeks, in addition to being unable to carry out her domestic duties for a period of two months. Plaintiff claimed £6 6s medical expenses, £8 10s hospital expenses, £2 14s for medicine and dental expenses, £5 expenses at Wellington, and £SO general damages. Mr Ongley appeared for plaintiff and Mr Cooper for defendant. In evidence, plaintiff stated that she and her husband had been travelling in their car towards Ashhurst when the lights of two oncoming cars had been seen. One was passed on its correct side of the road, but the other car had turned from its proper side and had struck the vehicle in which plaintiff was travelling. Plaintiff had received severe injuries and had been taken on to a nursing home in another car. She had been obliged to stay an extra five days in the institution as the result of the collision.

Edward Spelman, husband of plaintiff, stated that he was bringing his wife into a nursing home when the accident occurred. Nearing Ashhurst, two cars were noticed. One was parked on the correct side of the road and the other - was approaching from the direction of Ashhurst. When witness had been about to pass the stationary car, the other vehicle' had turned in at an angle from its correct side of the road and had Crashed into witness’s car, doing extensive damage. Witness had been keeping as far to the left-hand side of the road as possible, and he was not travelling any faster than 20 miles per hour. The metalled j>ortion of the road was 21ft. wide where the collision occurred. After the impact, witness’s car had travelled about 22 yards into a ditch. Medical evidence was given by Dr. Peach, who said that Mrs Spelman was badly cut about the face when he had examined her after the accident, and she was generally shaken. Her main trouble was shock and Mrs Spelman was highly strung at the time. Witness had attended Mrs Spelman since the accident and did not consider that she had quite recovered from the effects of it.

Leonard Sextus, farmer, of Umutoi, said that his vehicle had been parked on the side of the road, and that plaintiff’s car had passed it on the correct side. He had witnessed the collision between the two cars which had occurred on plaintiff’s side of the road. Stating that he had heard the crash ,of the collision, George J. Geange, farmer, of Ashhurst, added that the impact had occurred on plaintiff’s correct side of the road. That evening, and the following morning, witness had examined the wheel marks of both cars, which had shown clearly that the accident had happened on plaintiff’s right side of the road, while it was obvious that defendant, prior to the accident, had been on his right side. Michael Hickey, a labourer, gave corroborative evidence, while Owen Kerrigan stated that he had examined the wheel marks of plaintiff’s car which had been on its correct side of the road the whole of the time. Frederick George Sextus stated, that plaintiff’s car was» so far over on its correct side of the road that two other cars could have passed abreast on the road.

DEFENDANT’S VERSION

Defendant, in evidence, said that he was travelling along the AshhurstPohangina Road, about three-quarters of a mile from Ashhurst. He had to pull out a little in order to pass a stationary car, and the collision had occurred in the centre of the road. Witness alicgcd that Mr Spelman had later approached him and asked him if he (witness) would bake the blame for the accident, hut witness had refused. , ~ .. Answering Mr Ongley, witness saiu that he did not know that plaintiff s car was approaching until he had pulled out to pass the ftationary car. He could give no reason why he liat. not seen the other car previo a.sly, but it had appeared to “coine from the clouds.” His speed at The tune would be about 25 miles per hour. Mrs Harper, wife of defendant, corroborated her husband’s evidence. She could not, however, say how far oyer towards tlie middle of the road her husband had-swerved to pass the stationary car, or where tlie collision had actually occurred. Constable Fisclicr, of Ashhurst, stated that he had examined the wheel tracks of the cars after tlie collision. Defendant's car had travelled ■ nine yards from the point ol impact and had slewed sharply to the right. Plaintiff’s car had gone on for about 33 yards before it had gone into a ditch. , Answering Mr Ongley, witness sant that the tracks showed that plaintut s riglvb wheel had travelled along the crown of the road prior to the acciWalter Turner, accountant, stated that lie made inquiries about the accident and had been informed by the witness Geange that he did not know who was to blame. This concluded *he evidence. In giving his decision, the Magistrate stated that the balance of the evidence showed that the collision had occurred on plaintiff’s side of the road. Defendant_ought to hove seen plaintiff’s lights at least' six yards away if he was keeping a proper lookout. It appeared that defendant had pulled out too far across the road, and no person had any right to pull put into the road to pass another oar unless he had ample room to do so. it had been more than an error of judgment on defendant’s part, and lie was guilty of negligence in coming out when the road was not clear. Plaintiff was allowed £6 fas medical expenses, £7 12s 6d hospital expenses, £2 14s for medical and dental expenses, and £2O general damages. In addition, defendant has to pay £6 Is witnesses’ exjienses, £4 3s solicitor s fees and £2 8s court costs.