JUDGMENT FOR BUS COY

Northern Advocate, 19 October 1935, Page 12

JUDGMENT FOR BUS COY

4 ‘ HOSPITAL CORNER COLLISION CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES. LENGTHY ' HEARING CONCLUDED. Judgment for the Northern Motor Bus Company was given in the Whangarei Magistrates’ Court yesterday afternoon in the, case in which damages were claimed from E. A. Thorburn, a farmer, of Kara, as the result of a collision:; between a bus and Thorburn’s car at the junction of Hospital and Maunu Roads, on May 18. The Bus Company (Mr L. A. Johnson) claimed ' £65 Is 2d against Thorburn for [damage to the vehicle, loss of use, etc:. Thorburn, (Mr Pickmere and Mr Trimmer) counter-claimed to the extent of £ll3 10s 6d. The items included loss of car £65, wages £lO 10s and general damages £25. R. Wood (Mr Johnson), who was a passenger in the. bus, claimed £l9 against Thorburn .for general damages and doctor’s fees./ Mr J. G. L. Hewitt, S.M., was on the bench. The taking of evidence was. completed in the morning; Fifteen witnesses' were called altogether. The Right-Hand Rule. Mr. Pickmere said that his case rested on the failure of the bus to observe the right-hand rule and the fact that the bus cut the corner. Mr Hewitt that, from what the bus driver said, he (the driver) was justified in believing, that the car intended to take the lower road. When he saw the car was going to take the lower road and no collision would occur, he did what any man would have done, and took the curve. When he looked' again the position' had changed—*the car-had-not taken the lower road. He could not see where the right-hand rule, applied. Mr Pickmere: “Was not Thorburn justified in thinking" that the bus would stop at the corner and give way, as it hesitated?” Mr Hewitt: “All other things being equal—yes.” Mr Pickmere: “Thorburn had no duty to look at the side road. It was the duty of the bus to give way in accordance with the right-hand rule.” Mr Hewitt: “Thorburn had a duty to look out, too. He is not entitled to go blindly and say that everyone must look out for him. The duty of exercising care rests on everyone, whether on a highroad or not.” Mr Pickmere, in reviewing the evidence said that it was claimed that the bus placed itself in such a position that the accident was made inevitable by disregard of the right-hand rule. Mr Trimmer submitted that there was no evidence of negligence on Thorburn’s part. Where Onus Rests; Mr Johnson submitted that it would be impossible to hold that the bus had cut the corner. If it did, how did it finish in the position it.did? Even if it was assumed that it did, Thorburn said that he was 33 feet from the corner when the bus appeared, and the bus would have moved forward and left plenty of room for Thorburn by the time he reached the corner. The onus was on the defendant to prove contributory negligence, which counsel submitted had not been done.

Qral Judgment. Mr Pickmere asked if the judgment could be given in writing, as it was an important case. Mr Hewitt; “I am prepared to give judgment now. I do not want to write it, unless there is a reason. Unless you propose to. appeal, what is the reason?” . , . Mr Pickmere; “It is an important case and there is a big amount of money involved.” , ■ T , Mr Hewitt; “I do not mind, but I do not see how you will: be affected by an oral judgment.. If there is an appeal, I could write my judgment. I see no reason to writeoff.” The Bench Sums Up. Mr Hewitt said that owing to the short time available in accidents for witnesses to observe' all the circumstances, witnesses were liable to get an indication of some happening in their minds, and, generally speaking, there was some talk and discussion. Time usually elapsed before an ,action was brought, and when they came to court witnesses often had great difficulty in distinguishing between what they saw and what they had heard or deduced from what they saw. It was a difficult thing to. take witnesses absolutely literally-—for example as to time, rate of speed and position. Their statements had all to be taken more or less. Witnesses were also usually unaccustomed to plans and showed positions which were inaccurate, but approximately correct. One had to look at the position from a broad point of view. • “The, conclusion I have arrived at, said the magistrate, “is that the real cause of the accident was defendant’s failure to keep a proper look-out. I accept the bus driver’s evidence as more nearly representing the position than any other of the evidence called. On quite a number of points he is corroborated either by. his own j witnesses or by defendant in his admissions. “What I find as a fact is that the bus driver proceeded down the road at a reasonable speed and in a reasonable and careful manner.” The magistrate, after reviewing the evidence, said that defendant had never said in any of his conversations that the bus driver had cut the corner. He had said that he did not see the bus, and the Magistrate considered that he should have seen it. The evidence was too conflicting on the point of ■ cutting the corner. There was no direct proof, and the onus was on defendant to prove this, which he had not done. The fault was with the defendant for not keeping a proper lookout. The Magistrate found for the Bus Company for £SO Is 2d and costs. The amount of depreciation was reduced. Wood was awarded £7 10/ and costs. Security for appeal was fixed at the amount of the judgment and 10 guineas.