HOPE SADDLE CASE

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXX, 19 December 1936, Page 7

HOPE SADDLE CASE

SEQUEL TO COLLISION DAMAGES AWARDED TO PLAINTIFF Judgment for the plaintiff on both claim and counterclaim was given in his reserved decision which was delivered in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday by Mr T. E. Maunsell S.M., in a case which arose out oi an accident near the Hope Saddle a year ago. Albert Geoi ge Mac donald, represented by Mr C. R. Fell, proceeded against Horace W. Warring, for whom Mr W. V. Rout appeared, claiming £l6 13s for damages to his car, depreciation, salvage and hotel expenses. A counter-claim for £3 2s was lodged by Warring. “The collision in connection witn which this case is concerned occurred at a bend of the road some distance j on the Nelson side of the Hope ’ ” ; die,” said the Magistrate. ine ■ plaintiff was proceeding from and tne defendant to Nelson. About one-halt of the road is worn smooth by tramc and the smooth portion is on the plaintiffs left and the defendant s right. Defendant produced two photographs showing the position, according to his evidence, of his car after the accident. The photographs show and a view of the locality disclose more clearly that there is a fairly sharp grade downwards on the plaintiffs left and upwards on the defendant’s left. “VERY SIGNIFICANT FACT” “It is a very significant fact that the front right of plaintiff’s car struck the rear right of defendants cai. Either therefore the defendant was steering to the left or the plaintiff to the right or both such operations took place iust prior to the accident. H the plaintiff steered across to his right up the grade and across instead of along the smooth half of the road, striking the defendant’s car on the rear although it was entirely off the smooth half I can only account for this by inferring that the plaintiffs car had got out of control through excessive speed or through some othei agency. But the weight of evidence is that the plaintiff was travelling slowly. Both the plaintiff and his companion say they saw the defendant coming. The road was strange to the plaintiff. He was travelling uphill in third gear. He says his speed was 15 m.p.h. His companion in corroborating this says that at this particular spot he glanced at the speedometer. Both say that at the time of the collision plaintiffs car had practically stopped. The defendant states the speed at a higher figure, but he says it was not excessive.

“CAR BROADSIDED AWAY FROM SMALL CAR” “Now on the other hand if the defendant were following the smooth portion of the road thereby accordingly cutting the corner and upon meeting plaintiff’s car pulled to his left this would be entirely consistent with the occurrence of the accident. In his written report to the Insurance Company defendant says that when he applied his brakes his car “broadsided” away from the small car. To do this it would “broadside” up the grade which I think most improbable and further, if it did, then it seems to me there would have been no collision of the nature sustained. In his evidence he says “The tail of my car swung, if anything towards the left,” that is up the grade. The plaintiff says “apparently on sighting my car Warring swung out violently to his left and applied his brakes, this causing the tail of his car to swing inwards and strike my car with the rear right wheel of his car.” This is precisely consistent with physical probability especially as the swing of the rear of the defendant’s car would be down the grade. “WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE”

“With regard to the evidence of Bird, who arrived shortly after the collision he says that defendant’s car was obviously on his right side and more than necessary. On the other hand he says that the plaintiff’s car was up against the bank, and he drove between them. Obviously therefore one or both cars must have been moved before Bird arrived., The weight of evidence is in favour of the defendant’s car having been moved. He denies this and says that it was the plaintiff’s car that was moved. The plaintiff says exactly the reverse and his evidence is corroborated by the witness Leek. We have the position that the defendant’s car was on the down-hill grade and being practically undamaged could with no difficulty at all, be moved with its own power. The plaintiff s car was damaged fairly considerably. The defendant says it was moved by lifting it. This would have been a needless laborious proceeding and it seems therefore to me that the plaintiff’s evidence is clearly the more probable. JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF “Judgment is therefore for the plaintiff on both claims and counterclaim. I assess damages as follows: Repairs, £5 11s; salvage, £3 12s; depreciation, £5; hotel expenses, £1 ss; total, £ls Bs.