ACCIDENT SEQUEL

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXX, 31 March 1936, Page 9

ACCIDENT SEQUEL

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES NEGLIGENCE ALLEGED MAGISTRATE RESERVES DECISION The circumstances of an accident which occurred on the I’ichmond-Sloko load about a year ago, and in which four cars were involved, were re-traced in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday before Mr T. E. Mauiisell, S.M., when Theodore Morel proceeded against Roderick Buchanan Fell, to recover damages amounting to £ll4 Is Id. Mr J. p. Hayes appeared for plaintitl and Mr C. K." Fell for defendant. Air Ilaycs said that the matter of the collision had been brought before the .Magistrate oil two occasions previously. In the last civil case L. Sigglckow had sued Morel, the present plaintiff on the ground that Morel was negligent. Sigglckow failed in the ease, and a subsequent appeal was dismissed. Morel was now suing Roderick Fell for damages on the ground that Fell was the substantial cause, of the damages which plaintiff claimed. Plaintiff’s claim included the repair bill for his car. and costs incurred in defending the previous action brought against him by Sigglckow. Theodore Morel in evidence recounted the incidents leading to the accident. He had left Richmond immediately after a car driven by A. Thomson, and on reaching the aerodrome witness saw a small car ahead of Thomson, on the same side of the road, hilt witness could not tel) whether it was coining or going. Events happened quickly, Thomson stopped suddenly, witness bumped off the hack of Thomson’s ear and cannoned into a car driven by L. Sigglckow, which was going out towards Richmond. Witness said lie had no reasonable chance of escaping the collision. Repairs to his car cost £29 ISs I Id, and legal expenses incurred in the civil action £24 2s 2d, with £lO general damages. Cross-examined, witness said he was travelling at 25-30 m.p.h. and was about a chain and a half behind Thomson. When lie realised that he was going to hit Thomson he steered out. He had not steered out, before because there would have been three ears abreast on the road, aiul lie was not prepared to risk that. The skid mark of 70 feet showed that he had braked hard for that distance. At no time did he know Fell’s ear was hacking towards Thomson.

A. Thomson said that he was travelling at a reasonable speed—3o m.p.h. When confronted with Fell reversing his small car towards him on the same side of the road at 10-12 m.p.h., and with Sigglckow on the other side of the road, witness said lie did what lie though best and came to a sudden stop. Witness, cross-examined suggested that Fell should have stopped till tho road was clear. If he bail stopped GO feet away instead of 40 feet lie would not have endangered witness. Had Fell stopped witness would have drawn in behind him ancl stopped. A. Nicholls, foreman mechanic, gave evidence as to repairs, ancl distances in which ears will stop at various speeds. Mr C. R. Fell, for defendant submitted that defendant was not driving on the wrong side; that he did not hack an unreasonable distance; that there was no evidence of failing to keep a proper look-out; and that lie stopped before reaching the other car. If defendant was negligent in any of these things, then Air Fell submitted that lie was not liable, because of the contributory negligence of plaintiff in driving too fast and not being able to stop, and in failing to keep a proper look out; and also plaintiff had the last opportunity of avoiding the accident. Further plaintiff was not entitled to succeed in the matter of costs, as those claimed were above the amount already awarded by the other courts and paid. Roderick Buchanan Fell, defendant, in evidence, said that at the time of the accident he was a member of the Aero Club. As he drove past the aerodrome he saw someone in the ground he wished to talk to, and he stopped and hacked up the road for 120 ft. He saw Thomson’s car coming 200 yards away. He did not see Morel’s car prior to the crash, hut heard the squealing of tires oil the road just before the accident. There was no danger between witness and Thomson. There was nothing to stop Thomson passing him on the'right hand side and lie expected him to do so. There was room for three cars abreast. The road was 23ft wide. Cross-examined, witness said he agreed that it would have been just as easy for him to go across to the other side of the road, turn and drive back to the gate of the drome, as to reverse. Mr Hayes: “Have you since repeated such a foolish thing as to rercisc 120 ft when there is traffic about?” Defendant said that he had. At no stage of his backing did lie think there was any danger, and with a reasonable amount of skill the accident could have been avoided. Mr Fell submitted that hacking on the left was not driving on the wrong side of the road. Ho agreed that anyone hacking must exercise extreme care, but there was nothing unreasonable in the distance hacked. A proper lookout was kept. On the other allegation that defendant hacking as lie did under the circumstances was negligent, that might he so and on that allegation of negligence the question might he fought. However. Morel should have stopped some distance off Thomson, and on that basis there was no negligence by defendant. The 7GJft skid of Morel’s ear was past question. The plaintiff’s evidence showed that at the speed he was travelling plaintiff should have been able to stop in half that distance. Morel must have been travelling faster than lie had said. If he could not stop in 70ft he was negligent in his speed; if lie could have stopped and did not. then lie was negligent in not observing the traffic in front of him. If plaintiff and defendant were both negligent, then plaintiff had the last opportunity of avoiding the accident. The Magistrate after hearing further argument hv Mr ITayes said he had decided that there was negligence on the part of defendant. Argument on aspects of the law and on the question of contributory negligence was heard and the decision was reserved.