SEQUEL TO ACCIDENT.

Manawatu Standard, Volume LIII, Issue 251, 20 September 1933, Page 8

SEQUEL TO ACCIDENT.

JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF. Reserved judgment was given by Mr J. L. Stout, S.M., in tne Magistrate’s Court yesterday, in the case heard on the sth inst. wherein Andrew James Whyte, of Tokomaru, proceeded against Edward P. Edwards, ot Otaki, claiming damages amounting to £99 I3s 2d as a result of his having come iuto collision with a stationary and unlighted lorry half a mile south of the Kahuterawa bridge on the evening of May 6 last. At the hearing, counsel for the defence submitted that plaintiff, with excellent lights, had not attempted to explain why he had not seen the lorry. Even had there been a tail light, plaintiff would have failed to see it. Accepting the version that plaintiff had been watching the lights of the approaching car and had been blinded by them, lie had had no right to be watching those lights, but should have been keeping a proper look-out. Had he done so, counsel submitted, plaintiff would have seen the lorry, despite the fact that it was uiilighted. “In this case I feel that the accident was caused by the defendant’s driver leaving his motor lorry unlighted on a dark country road,” said Mr Stout. “I feel that the night was such that his lamps ought to have been on and that his failure to see that this was done was negligence. I find that there was no contributory negligence on plaintiff’s part. He was driving at a reasonable pace and his vision was obscured by the lights ot an approaching vehicle, which rendered it impossible to pick up defendant’s unlighted lorry. Had a red taillight been showing he could no doubt have seen defendant’s lorry in time to avoid a collision. The accident is therefore, in my opinion, attributable solely to defendant’s negligence. Judgment will be for special damages as claimed (£79 13s 2d) and £2O general damages for depreciation, with costs, according to scale.” Security for appeal was fixed at the amount of the judgment and costs, plus £2O. Costs are to be decided later. At the hearing Mr W. L. Fitzherbert appeared for plaintiff and Mr H. R. "Cooper for defendant.