RECENT COLLISION

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume 78, 25 June 1943, Page 2

RECENT COLLISION

TRUCK AND BREAD VAN AT INTERSECTION RECENT APPEAL COURT CASE MENTIONED MAGISTRATE RESERVES DECISION The recent decision of the Court of Appeal in regard to traffic giving way on intersections was referred to in the Magistrate’s Court this morning when a case, resulting from a collision on the intersection near Cock and Co.’s, was heard before Mr T. E. Maunsell, S.M. John Alexander Busch (Mr M. C. H. Cheek) pleaded not guilty to driving without due care and attention. Senior-Sergeant C Petersen, prosecuting, explained that defendant was driving a truck along Haven road towards town. Another vehicle was travelling towards the Port and when almost as Day’s Corner defendant pulled off to his right and struck this vehicle on the side. The Magistrate commented on the possible bearing of the recent Court of Appeal decision. The Senior-Sergeant said that even if the Court of Appeal was correctly reported a vehicle could not barge ahead into another, even if the other vehicle was in the wrong. Evidence was given by Josiah Ruff, driver of Anstice’s bread van. He said he was half-way across the road from Cock and Co.’s corner to Day s when he noticed a lorry of Neale and Haddow’s in Vanguard street. It stopped to give way to him and then he saw Busch on his right coming towards town. Busch was then 30-35 feet from witness. Witness continued and then a collision ensued, the van being struck above the hub of the back wheel. He saw no signal given by Busch. Witness was travelling at 15-18 m.p.h. Cross-examined, witness said he was 9 or 10ft from the centre of the road, though not as far as practicable on the left of the road. His car did not finish up over the dome on the road. He did not see Busch start to make his turn. He saw the truck first when it was about 9 feet away from the dome by Anzac Park. Willliam N. Burrow, who was in the van with Ruff, said that as they approached the intersection he saw Neale and Haddow’s lorry pull up. Ruff kept straight on. Witness saw a truck coming along Haven road, but saw no signal. When he saw the truck turn in he thought it was going to hit the van, so he held on to the side of the van. The truck collided with the van close to the bick wheel, slewed it round and capsized it. The van was on its correct side. Henry P. Goad, a driver employed by Neale and Haddow, who was driving north along Vanguard street, said he saw Anstice’s van on his right, so he pulled up He saw Busch approaching but did not see a signal He could not see the actual collision because his view w'as obscured by the van. To Mr Cheek witness said he first saw Busch’s truck opposite the transformer l n the Park. In the short view witness had of the truck he would have seen a signal had one been given. There was nothing to indicate that the truck was going to turn. A sketch plan of the locality was produced by Constable T. P. Killalea. He said that the van was on its correct side of the road. The damage to the van was confined to the right rear guard. A statement by defendant was also produced. DEFENDANT’S VERSION The defendant went into the witness box and gave his account of the accident. As he approached the corner he heard the sound of a horn. He slowed down, sounded his horn and put his hand out to the right. That was just by the transformer. Neale and Haddow’s lorry was in sight but was stationary. Just after giving the signal he saw the van coming, so he pulled his hand in and kept on his proper course. He did that to let the van pass. He had just started to make his turn, and had plenty of room to spare. He first saw the van by Cock and Company’s. He himself was just past the dome by Day’s. The. van travelled further to the point of impact than defendant. When he saw the van coming he put the truck into second gear and was travelling at about 5 m.p.h. The collision was about six feet from the manhole on defendant’s correct side of the road. He was caught on the right hand side of the bumper. Ruff was over the centre line on his wrong side, and travelling fast. Cross-examined, witness said that it was raining hard but visibility was good He put out his hand eight or ten feet away from the dome. The right hand end of the bumper came into contact with the right hand side of the van. He had decided not to turn when he saw the van coming and then afterwards he began to turn. Between the time he had decided not to turn and the time he began to turn he did not give a signal; he did not think it necessary. He did not have time to straighten up before meeting Ruff’s van. A carpenter working just opposite Cock and Company’s, George T. Phillips, said he heard a crash and went out. He helped to right the van and pushed it straight up. He considered the van was further north than shown on the plan. John A. Logan, who was also working near the scene of the accident, said he went out just after the van had been righted. The white dome was under the left hand door of the van. Busch’s truck was in Waimea street with the right hand front wheel four feet from the centre of the manhole. It was facing the east side of Cock and Co’s. Busch was well on his left hand side of the road. The wheels of the baker’s van were three to four feet over the centre line, on the wrong side. POINTS OF LAW Counsel for the defendant addressed the court on points of law. Before 1936 the right-hand rule applied only to vehicles “approachingf intersections, but an amendment in 1936 made it apply to vehicle “crossing” intersections. He referred to the recent Court of Appeal decision. The Magistrate suggested that it was rffbre than ever necessary for Busch to keep his arm out. Mr Cheek said that if Busch was engaged in turning that was an alteration of course and that gave him absolute right of way. His Worship observed that the Appeal Court decision was correct in law but it now behoved motorists turning to the right to be more careful to keep their arm out than ever before. He reserved his decision.