CAR COLLISION ON COLYTON ROAD

Manawatu Times, Volume LIV, Issue 6887, 17 April 1929, Page 3

CAR COLLISION ON COLYTON ROAD

COURT GIVES JUDGMENT. BOTH PARTIES FOUND TO HAVE BEEN NEGLIGENT. Reserved judgment was given by Mr. R. M. Watson, S.M., at the Feilding Magistrate’s Court yesterdayin the Colyton road motor car collision case, in which George Philip Burr, farmer, of Colyton, sued John Williamson, farmer ,also of Colyton for £l3 9s, being the cost <Tf repairs and depreciation to plaintiff’s car in a collision which occurred on December 13 last with a car driven by defendant. Defendant counter-claimed for £9O ss, being £ls 5s cost of repairs, £5 loss of use and £2O depreciation in value of liis car and £SO for personal injuries and general damages. Plaintiff alleged negligence on the part of defendant, while defendant alleged that the accident was caused by plaintiff driving at an excessive speed on the wrong side of the road.

Tlio facts, as reviewed, were that on December 13 plaintiff was driving his car at some 30 miles per hour along the Colyton-Taonui road towards Taonui and more or less on the wrong side of the long and straight highway. The defendant drove his car from a gateway, hidden by a hedge, ahead of plaintiff and on plaintiff’s left, crossing the road in front of plaintiff. He brought his car to a standstill facing plaintiff’s ear with his right rear wheel over the centre line of the road on his wrong side. There was a conflict of evidence as to how far apart the two cars were when defendant first came out on the road. It was clear, however, that defendant had time to get across the road and also to .turn in plaintiff s direction and practically stop. In the Magistrate’s opinion ho defendant was guilty of negligence in acting as lie did. He did not use reasonable care after leaving the gateway. Had he done so, the accident would have been avoided. Coming as he did from a gateway into a traffic road, his duty was of a “higher” order than that of persons using the roadway. In his Worship’s opinion, however, there was also negligence on the part of the plaintiff. When he saw defendant, plaintiff should immediately have crossed to his proper side and reduced his speed sufficiently to enable him to observe every point of danger and to be in a position as to control his car. Plaintiff failed to do this and in the Magistrate’s opinion, plaintiff’s negligence contributed to the accident. It was not possible for the Magistrate to determine whether the plaintiff’s or the defendant’s negligence was the decisive cause of the damage and injury. The collision was due to the joint negligence of both parties and therefore, neither party was entitled to recover. Judgment would therefore be for the defendant on the claim and for the plaintiff on the counter-claim, with costs according to scale. At the hearing, Mr. G. Harold Smith appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. H. 11. Cooper for the defendant.