Sequel to Motor Collision

Manawatu Times, Volume LIV, Issue 7210, 17 July 1933, Page 3

Sequel to Motor Collision

MAGISTRATE RESERVES DECISION IN ACTION FOR DAMAGES.

As a sequel to tlio fatal accident which occurred at tie intersection of the Longburn-Rongotea and Aorangi roads on June 29, 1932, when a High School boy, Wesley Buchanan, lost Ins life, tiho two parties in the collision on Friday sought to recover damages, oaoh alleging negligence against the other. Before Mr J. L. Stout, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court, W. J. Barlow, farmer, of Rongotea, for whom Mr H. R. Cooper appeared, claimed the sum of £l6O 4s 6d from Anniiio Emma Glencora Turnbull. Mrs Turnbull, who was represented by Mr W. L.. Fitzherbert, counter-claimed for the sum of £175 Os 3d. Plaintiff was the owner of the car in which his son was conveying a party of schoolchildren towards Rongotea, While Mrs Turnbull was in charge of the other vehicle. Plaintiff’s claim included £llO 4s 6d special and £SO general damages, as his car allegedly suffered severo damage. The counterclaim alleged that Mrs Turnbull's vehicle was damaged beyond repair, and that the accident was entirely duo to negligence on tho part of BaTlow’s car.

Giving evidence, plaintiff stated that he owned tho seven-seater vehicle damaged in tho accident. He first knew of the collision when told of it by one of his sons. Witness produced a plan made from measurements taken by the constable at tho scene of the mishap. His car was licensed as a contract vehicle for the purpose of carrying pupils to tho secondary schools in Palmerston North. His son, who was a particularly experienced driver, was in charge of tho car. Extra expense was entailed by the fact that another car was required for a period of about six weeks. Inelud cd in his expenses were medical fees, damaged clothing on the part of his children and extensive repairs to the car, which was uninsured. The brakes on the car were constantly in good order, and were quite effective on the day of the accident. It would have been quite impassible to test the brakes properly afterwards, on account of the sovere structural damage to the pedai -and the car generally. The tyres were also quite satisfactory after the collision; they had not burst, but still contained the original wind. However, they had to be replaced a few days later, as they were filled up with gravel. To Mr Fitzherbert, plaintiff said tho car was about 14 years old, although ho had acquired it in January, 1932. He did not know the maximum speed of the car, but it was certainly not capable ol anything like 60 miles per hour. Witness strongly denied any suggestion that the brakes on his car were defective in'any Tcspoct. William Edward Barlow, son of the plaintiff, said that he was accustomed to .drive the car to and fro each day He left the Technical school at about four minutes to four, and after picking up the High School pupils, continued home by his usual -route. He first saw defendant’s car when he was about 70 yards from the corner, while Mrs Turnbull was considerably further off. Witness was travelling at- about 30 miles per hour. He began to steady up, and as defendant was on his left, concluded that she would give way.. The other cor slowed up, but just as witness was approaching tho intersection Mrs Turnbull appeared to put on speed again. She swerved first to the left and then back again to the right and came "right over the top of us.’’ Both cars capsized. Witness was positive he had sounded his horn before reaching the intersection. He had climbed out and succeeded in stopping the engine, after which he helped the others to extricate themselves. His brakes were in perfect condition a.nd had never occasioned any trouble at all. He had not seen Mrs Turnbull give any indication of what coutso she intended to take. Cross-examined, witness denied that he was travelling excessively fast, and that his brakes did not act as promptly as they ought to have. Jack Barlow, a younger brother, and another passenger in the car, gave similar evidence as to tho speed of the car. Mrs Turnhbull seemed to strike the front of his brother’s vehicle. When they sighted Mrs Turnbull she was approximately twice the distance from the corner that, they were.

Glyn Morgan, another High School pupil, told a similar story, and reiterated that Barlow was not going fast. [Dudley Beatty, a Kopano farmer, Whose son formerly travelled with Barlow, said he knew the latter for a veiy careful driver, who never went at an excessive rate. On occasions when he had seen aßrlow applying theb rakes, he had always pulled the car up lyThis concluded the evidence for the plaintiff. Giving evidonce, defendant stated that she first saw Barlow’s car when she was about 100 yards from, the corner, the other vehicle being some distance further away. After slowing down ,tiie went straight ahead, considering this, the only safe thing to do. Plaintiff’s car then appeared to accelerate, and struck her car near the petrol tank. Witness had driven foir 10 years and never had an accident before. She attributed the collision’ to the speed of Barlows car. Cross-examined, defendant stated that she had not applied her brakes at all, considering it unnecessary. She thought, she had ample time to cross the intersection.

Arthur George Bear, dairy, farmer, of Eongotea., whoso place Barlow used to pass daily, declared that the latter never did less than about 50 miles per hour.

Mr Cooper lodged a formal objection to this evidence.

Arthur Hill, another Eongotea dairy farmer, said he was on the scene of the accident five minutes after it. had happened. Barlow spoke. to witness, who asked him if hehad seen the other car. Barlow said "yes.” "Then why didn’t you stop?” witness asked, and Barlow replied ”1 stepped on it as I thought I could get past.” Kathleen Elizabeth Meyrick, the passenger in Mrs Turnbull’s car, gave a corroborative account of the collision. Defendant was trap ell ing at about 27 or ■2S miles per hour. They were over the intersection when Barlow’s car hit theirs. Plaintiff’s car must have been

doing about 50 miles per hopr. William Justice, motor Bit*

prietor, said that he had examined plaintiff’s car and tho hand brake appeared effective, although the raohet was not gripping. The foot brake had little effect on the left.wheel and nono at all on the right. One brake anchor had evidently been broken prior to the accident, and it was apparent that the brakes were largely ineffective. It. was doubtful if the brakes would have skidded the wheels if applied suddenly. The other vehicle shower clear traces of being struck by plaintiff’s car. Cross-examined, witness modified his statement made at'the inquest, that the rachet was broken, admitting that it was not "broken,” but "ineffective.” Ernest Ukrbom, garage proprietor, said the gripping qualities of the brakes on. plaintiff’s car were poor, making them inefficient. Examination of Mrs Turnbull’s car showed that it had been struck by the other vehicle right in the centre of the machine. The impact must have been very heavy.

In the course of cross-examination, witness said it was quite possible that the brakes might have answered satisfactorily under ordinary circumstances, even though the anchor bracket -was missing.

Formal evidence by Constable Blaxland, of Eongotea, a.s to inspecting the scone of the collision, and constructing a plan of it, concluded the evidence for defendant.•• Decision was reserved