MOTOR CAR COLLISION

Manawatu Times, Volume LIV, Issue 6945, 26 June 1929, Page 3

MOTOR CAR COLLISION

Claim and Counter-Claim

The hearing was resumed at the Feilding Magistrate s Court yesterday of the civil action in which J. E. Jackson, electrician, of Feilding, sued A. C. Armstrong, traveller, of AVcllinglun for £3l 7s 9d damages caused to 1 1 ain tiff's motor truck as a result of a collision at. the intersection of Aorangi road and Gladstone street, on February 22, the accident lining allegedly. due to cureless and negligent driving by the defendant.

Defendant counter-claimed for £.lO 17s damages to his car, alleging that the collision was the result of negligence on Ihe part of the plaintiff.

Last Court, day, the evidence of defendant was taken, Armstrong stating that the collision was due to negligence on Ihc part of the plaiutiff.

.Mr. D. C. Cuilinane, counsel for plaintiff, set out that the accident was due to the reckless speed at which Armstrong drove libs car aud called plaintiff, who detailed the circumstances of tiie collision. In the opinion of plaintiff, defendant could have avoided the- accident had lie made an effort, before reaching the crossing, to reduce his speed. Plaintiff was positive his truck was stationary when Armstrong's car struck it. To Air. Graham: It took him a distance of 36 feet to pull up at 12 m.p.h. He could have pulled up dead but wished to avoid a skid. Ho was keeping a proper lookout and denied that he was speeding and that this was responsible for his being unable to puli the ear up before entering on to Aorangi street. The surface of the road was too loose to bring his car to a standstill before reaching the bitumen road. Plaintiff said that it was the manner in which Armstrong’s car caught the, truck that brought that vehicle onto the side of the road. Ho repudiated counsel's suggestion that the truck was travelling when the collision took place. His reason for not turning to the left was fear of being hit behind by Armstrong. When lie reached the intersection, the speed of the truck would be 5 m.p.h., aud he could not turn' to the left. After reviewing the evidence his AVor.-hip found that Jackson’s truck had not been stationary at the time of the impa.ct and that both parties had continued on their courses without diverging in any way. Both claim and counter-claim were dismissed.