KEEP TO THE LET!

Manawatu Times, Volume LII, Issue 3576, 6 April 1927, Page 4

KEEP TO THE LET!

MOTOR COLLISION ENDS IN COURT CASE. SHOULD HEADLIGHTS BE DIMMED ? JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF. A case which occupied the attention of Mr. J. L. Stout, S.M., at the Magistrate’s Court yesterday was one wherein Kenneth Russell, farmer, of Linton, claimed of J. E. Warrington, farmer ,of Tokomaru, the sum of £29 7s, for damages to his Car allegedly due to a collision with defendant’s car at Fitzherbert on February 21, 1927. Plaintiff (for whom Mr Martyn Abraham appeared) in his claim stated defendant had negligently, recklessly and without proper control driven his motor-car, and had come into with plaintiff’s car ; that as a result of the collision plaintiff had paid for repairs thereto the sum of £l9 7s ; and that, owing to the collision plaintiff’s car had depreciated in value. Counsel, in briefly outlining the case for the plaintiff, stated that the collision had taken place at about sunset, when defendant had come round a corner 60 yards in front of plaintiff. He had been on the crown of the road when rounding the corner, but immediately after'had pulled to the right, thus causing plaintiff to pull /well to the left hand side of the road until his left hand wheel had been approximately 1 foot from a hedge. Defendant’s car had continued right on and had struck plaintiff’s car on the right front wheel, causing extensive damage. Defendant’s car had glanced off plaintiff’s, and had finished up in a watertable 15 yards further along the road. Plaintiff gave evidence on the lines already described by his counsel. Defendant, he said, had smelt strongly of liquor,, and had stated that he had been dazzled by plaintiff’s lights. Replying to Mr. Oram (who appear, ed for defendant) plaintiff said that the only explanation he could offer as to why defendant had pulled to the right hand side of the road was that he was under the influence of liquor. He admitted that defendant’s thick speech may have been due to defendant having a cold—which, Mr. Oram pointed out- —was extremely likely, as defendant 1 had been suffering from influenza shortly before the collision. Corroborative evidence was givez as to the circumstances of the collision by plaintiff’s wife, the evidence also being on similar lines as to defendant’s taking the wrong side of, the road, and his peculiar de-! meanoui; after the collision had oc. | curred. | Constable Gillard, In evidence, said that he had been called to the scene of the accident and on arrival there had interviewed both plaintiff and defendant. Defendant’s speech had noi been quite clear, and he had smelt o.‘ . liquor. Defendant had attributed the cause of the accident to the wet even. Ing and the dazzling lights of plain tiff’s car. 1 Replying to Mr. Oram, stated that he did not consider defend ant was drunk. Counsel continued In his cross-ex aminatlon, and produced two toy cars | with the object of demonstrating th* : position in which the two cars mua j have collided. • C. Eglinton said that he had traced I the wheel marks of plaintiff’s car foi j half a chain back, and they had been right off thq asphalt. He had not ex- j amlned the marks made by defendant’s car. Defendant had not appeared to be the worse for liquor. His j speech was thick, and obviously he ! had had liquor, but witness could not say that he was the worse for it. To Mr. Oram, witness said he had not traced the marks made by defend, ant’s car. S. P. Board gave evidence as to thcrepalrs done to plaihtlff’s car and as to details of depreciation of the car. Mr. Oram contended that the accident had been caused by the weather conditions prevailing at the time and that defendant had been dazzled by i plaintiff’s headlights, when his car J had come round the corner, the result being that the two cars had Just ! grazed—another four or five inches ' and they would not have collided at I all. i Defendant, In evidence, deposed 1 that he had been driving a car for six ; years and prior to this collision had 1 never had an accident. He had had 1 only two drinks that day. He had t been in a poor state of health and 1 would not have come out at all that Jay unless he had been compelled to 1 Jo so on business. Going home he had 1 switched his lights on at the pitz- I iierbert bridge, and from there on to £ :he place of the collision had travelled 1 it about 20 miles, per hour. He had 1 seen travelling on the left hand side * of the road. On sighting plaintiff’s 6 Jar hp had dimmed his lights and < iad pulled to the left of the road. As he plantiff’s car had come round the 1 jorner the lights had come full on ils windscreen, momentarily blinding ilm. He had again switched his lights >n full, and a few seconds later he two cars had collided.' Immediitely he had pulled his car up he had i rot out and gone back to see if any- ! ’ne was hurt, for he had heard chll- ] ren screaming. Damages to his car i tad cost him £l7 10s. j Replying to Mr. Abraham, witness -. i aid that h e had applied his brakes ! a soon as he felt the impact. He . ad a few days previously been in bed I I ■ - ith influenza. His visibility had been! fleeted by the fact that his wlndcreen was obscured by rain, and, in ■is opinion, it was totally impossible o trace any wheel marks. His visibll-

ity had been fairly good until plaintiff’s headlights had dazzled him. H!s Worship, in giving Judgment, said It was apparent from the evidence that the accident bad occurred on plaintiff’s side of the road. If defendant’s visibility had been obscured by the, rain on his windscreen he should have had his windscreen open, and his failure to do this was negligence on his part. It had not been proved to his satisfaction that plaintiff’s headIghts had been full on. “It is not settled law that headlights should be dimmed,” stated His Worship. “In England the practice is held to be a dangerous one. It has also been pointed out by several magistrates that a driver has no right to have his windscreen down if his visibility is affected by rain—and this seems to have been, cause of the accident in question.” Judgment was given for plaintiff for £2l 14s, costs Included.