Feilding Motor Collision

Manawatu Times, Volume 61, Issue 268, 12 November 1936, Page 9

Feilding Motor Collision

JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDENT PIRANI v. WHITE. Reserved decision was delivered by Mr R. M. Watson S.M., at tho Foilding Magistrate’s Court on Tuesday in the civil action, Ethel L. Pirani, widow of Foiiding, v. Albert J. White, cleaner of Wellington, a claim for £6l 16 10s damages arising out of a collision between motor cars of the parties which occurred in Manchester street Feilding, during Easter last. Tho facts were that on Easter Saturday morning last tho car of plaintiff, driven by her son Maurice, turned across Manchester street in front of the oncoming car of defendants and a collision occurred. Plaintiff’s claim was based upon an allegation of negligence on tho part of defendant which dedefendant denied. Reviewing the evidence the Magistrate remarked upon the ovidenco of the only eye witness of tho collision, one Gibson, who said that he was cycling past tho car of I’irani which commenced to move when lie saw the other car approaching and looked back as be anticipated that there might be a collision. Pirani had admitted that he had entered his car and made a sharp turn to tho right and until he was hit ho had no idea that there was any other car on the road. He also said that when he started his engine ho switched on the traffic indicator and tho green light on the steering wheel informed him that the indicator was operating. The Magistrate was satisfied.. that the indicator did operate and considered that it escaped the notico of the witness Gibson as well as that of the defendant. -The defendant had a clear vision of the traffic on tho road and it was rather remarkable that Pirani did not sec defendant’s car approaching. This far from satisfied the Magistrate that Pirani adequately looked out behind him at any timo prior to the collision. The Magistrate was unable to find that defendant drove at an excessive speed. Plaintiff’s case was based on alleged failure on tho part of defendant to keep a proper lookout, aud on tho evidenco the Magistrate was prepared to believe that this was so because defendant had by that time proceeded so close to a stationery van to be unable to seo the movement of plaintiff’s ear until it was too Into to avoid the collision. Defendant had seen plaintiff’s car stationary aud as ho drew near he kept well over on his correct side. The Magistrate considered that Pirani was negligent in turning out as ho did aud defendant could not have avoided the consequences of Pirani’s negligence, as when White saw Pirani’s car moving it •was too late, lie was consequently unable to find that defendant was guilty of negligence. In the opinion of the Magistrate the accident was due to the negligence of plaintiff’s son in turning out to his Tight in front of the van without first satisfying himself that no traffic was approaching from behind. On his own admission Pirani had no idea, until he was hit, that any other car was moving on tho street. Although he had several opportunities of knowing this he failed to avail himself of any. In turning out to his right in disregard of the possibility of traffic approaching behind him ho was negligent, and in the opinion of tho Magistrate this negligence was the cause of tho accident. The Magistrate referred to the following authorities: Grccu v Hardy 1929, South Australian State reports; Consumer v Stratford Carrying Co. 1934 where His Honour tho Chief Justice, following Judgo Parsons in Warren v Ileinzel 1923 South Australia Stato reports, held that a driver, altering his course and turning to his right had no right-of-way against the approaching traffic along tho street, and that such a driver was under a duty to first satisfy himself that tho driver of ail approaching vchielo had seen and appreciated his signal of intention to make the turn. Commenting upon this decision Mr Watson said that if such a duty devolved upon tho driver of a moving vehicle then the driver of a stationary vehicle was at least under as great a special duty, for it was obvious that a stationary vehicle provided to following or approaching traffic a greater sense of security than a moving vehicle.

Concluding, tlie Magistrate said that although plaintiff might not be identified with negligence on the part of her son nevertheless she must, to recover, establish negligence on the part of defendant and this, in his opinion, she had not done. Judgment would bo entered for defendant with costs. At the hearing Mr H. K. Cooper appeared for plaintiff and Mr. O. C. Mazengarb (Wellington) for the defendant.