DAMAGES CLAIMED

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXXIII, 11 December 1940, Page 6

DAMAGES CLAIMED

SEQUEL TO MOTOR COLLISION IN TAKAKA MAGISTRATE RESERVES DECISION A collision between a car and a motor truck which occurred in Commercial stret, Takaka, on 20th July, 1940. had its sequel in the Takaka Magistrate’s Court on Tuesday when Florence Drogemuller claimed from C. H. Andrews and Son. carriers, Takaka. the sum of £97 13s 3d special damages, the cost of the action and such other relief as may be just. The statement of claim alleged (1) That on 20th July. 1940, Ernest Albert Drogemuller (plaintiff’s father) was driving her Hillman car in Commercial street, Takaka: (2) That on the same day defendant Clarence James Andrews was driving a truck owned by C. H. Andrews and Son along Commercial street in a northerly direction; (3) That Drogemuller turned the vehicle across the road to what is known as Wadsworth’s Lane off Commercial street and the defendant so negligently drove the truck that it collided with plaintiff’s car, causing considerable damage to the car: (4) That defendant was negligent in that he drove at an excessive speed, failed to keep a proper look out, to stop or otherwise avoid plaintiff’s car and failed to exercise sufficient or proper control over the truck immediately before the time of the collision. Mr C. W. Thorp appeared for the plaintiff and Mr Cheek for the defendant. Both counsel explained that they also represented the respective insurance companies involved, but that al though the contest was nominally one between the insurance companies, it actually concerned only the plaintiff and the defendant. Mr Thorp said his object was to show that the driver of the truck was negligent as set out in the statement of claim. Quoting legal opinion in support of his contention he submitted that the driver of the car. observing the truck approaching 180 yards away had felt justified in turning into Wadsworth’s Lane. Mr Cheek insisted on it being proved in whose name the car was registered but the Magistrate (Mr T. E. Maunsell. S.M.) contended that it was a question of who owned the car. it being immaterial in whose name it was registered. Questioned as to who owned the car. Ernest Albert Drogemuller said his daughter was part owner with him. On the day of the collision he had got into the car. which was stationary in front of the Bank of New Zealand, started the engine and put out the indicator. He saw only one vehicle and was sure there were no others on the road behind him. As he went to turn into Wadsworth's Lane, there was a collision. He was struck on the head and could not say exactly what happened after that. At this stage of the proceedings Ernest Albert Drogemuller was joined as plaintiff with his daughter. Florence Drogemuller. In reply to a question by the magistrate, witness said he had not stopped when he saw the truck coming to let it pass him because it was so far back he thought he had ample time to turn. To Mr Cheek, witness said he had not loked back after seeing the lorry coming along in front of the Rest Room. CASE FOR THE DEFENCE Opening the case for the defence. Mr Cheek asked for a non-suit, submitting that the plaintiff had not proved negligence on the part of the defendant, but rather that the plaintiff E. A. Drogemuller had in his own evidence admitted his own negligence when he said he had not looked back after seeing the truck coming along in front of the Rest Room. Clarence James Andrews gave evidence that on the date in question he was driving his fathers lorry along Commercial street. He had moved off : from opposite Kirk and Co’s, store. At I the time of the collision he had not j actually gone into top gear. He was in 1 third gear and had the clutch in to go into top when he had had to slip the j clutch and apply his brakes. The j truck would not do more than 18 miles j per hour in third gear. The accident occurred just before 12 noon in bright! sunshine, but he could say that the sun ! had not interfered with his vision. | Drogemullers car was in front of the. Bank of New Zealand when he first saw i it and it had pulled straight across the road in front of him, making a sharp turn to the right. The car was mov- ! ing fairly fast and was about 18ft ahead 1 of him when it turned. He had turned ' the truck towards the lane to avoid hitting the car broadside on. He did not see a signal indicating that the car j wad about to turn. The car had come I to rest with one wheel on the pavement I and the front wheels turning to the right. He had no opportunity of swinging to the left to go behind the car; had he done so, he would have struck the| back of the car and if he had gone j straight ahead with the brakes applied j he would have hit the car broadside on. By turning to the right, he had saved ' the car from more serious damage. To Mr Thorp, witness said the car was about the length of his truck away' when he first saw it and it had started j

to make the turn towards the middle of the road. William Alfred Scott said he occupied the cab of the truck with the driver on the day of the collision. The truck was travelling at from 18 to 20 miles per hour. He first saw Drogemuller s car when it started to turn about 1} lengths of the truck away. He did I not see a signal from the car. He had had experience as a driver of a private motor vehicle and would say that in the | circumstances, had he been driving the truck, he would have done the same las Andrews had done. There was no i chance of turning in behind the car. Albert Norris Turley, school teacher, ; Takaka. said that on the morning of 20th July he was sitting in his own car ! alone. He noticed Andrew’s truck I moving towards him at a normal pace. ; Drogemuller*s car began to move off ! and had gone about two yards in a I straight line when it swung to the right. J When the car started to move the truck ! was 30 to 40ft away and he thought the j car was pulling out on to the crown of : the road intending to go straight ahead. ! Instead, it had made a fairly sharp turn I to the right. He did not se any sign of a Signal on Drogemuller’s car. The truck had pulled up very evenly from the time the brakes were applied. Wit- ! ness said he had dad 12 years’ driving experience and he could not see what else Andrews could have done but swerve to the right to avoid striking the car broadside on. Recalled, the plaintiff E. A. Drogemuller said, in reply to the magistrate, that his car was in second gear at the time of the impact and travelling at between six and seven miles per hour. The magistrate reserved his decision.