BURNING OF MOTOR-CAR

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 19254, 17 February 1926, Page 14

BURNING OF MOTOR-CAR

BLAZE AFTER COLLISION. : : - ' COURT ACTION AS SEQUEL . • ' : •* ; ;i " Hi QUESTION OF RESPONSIBILITY. Ihe destruction of' a motor-car by fire in a city street on June 8, 1925, laid the foundation of a suit which was tried by Mr. Justice Herdman and a jury in the Supreme Court yesterday. Arthur T. Newdick, butter merchant (Mr. Richmond),- claimed £350 damages from L. D. Nathan and Co., Ltd. (Mr. Finlay), as the value of a fivo-seater Hudson' car, alleged to have been destroyed through the negligence of one of the company's employees. The facta relied upon by claimant were that on the afternoon of June 8 he was driving down Liverpool Street from Karangahape Road at about 15 miles an hour. As he approached Mill Lane a van belonging to defendants was stationary at the oppo&ite side of Liverpool Street from the lane, with its radiator toward the kerb. Newdick sounded his horn when some distance off. No sign of intended movement came from the van. Just as he passed the mouth of the lane the van backed out, still without warning, and jammed the motor-car against a post. Being one of 'the older types, of -"Hudson car, this 1916 model, its benzine reservoir was beside its running-board, instead of at the back. The benzine pipe was burst, and the door and runningboard of the car ware smashed. The escaping benzine wa« caught in a kerosene tin. ■ .

Then, as Mr. Richmond put it, *'the intelligent driver of Nathan's van struck a match to light a fcigarette right J.mong the petrol femes, with the consequence that the Hudson car burst into flames and was entirely destroyed." The Rule of the Eoad. In a filed statement ol defence, it was claimed that plaintiff had shown contributory negligence, by not keeping to his proper side of the street. This, !Mr. Richmond suggested to the jury, meant that because a driver was forced to the right-hand side of the road, through a stationary vehicle occupying the left-hand side, he was to be considered blameworthy. The law gave a motorist the right to the . full width of the road, so long as he met or passed other moving vehicles on the proper side.

Plaintiff, in evidence, said he bought the car. second-hand in 1917 for £175, and spent about £l5O in patting it' in good order. In cross-examination he admitted the original purchase w£s complicated by exchange transactions, and that the car had cost him a practically valueless Allday car and £125 cashSeveral witnesses were examined as to car values. ' A Smoker's Responsibility. " Rather a pretty , distinction is involved in this case," suggested Mr. Fin-, lay to the jury, in opening for the defendants. The driver of the van was about to back into Mill Lane, and for that purpose cirove to the kerb of Liverpool Street, opposite the lane's mouth, and kept his engine still running. • Before, backing, he looked toward Karangahape Road and saw nothing approaching. Just as he reversed Newdick seemed to come from nowhere, and his car was jammed against the post. If defendants were liable for anything, it was only for the £lO or £l6 worth of damage done up to this stage. Any damage caused afterwards was not recoverable from the man's employers. "We employed him to be a driver, not to be a smoker. If ho lit a cigarette he did it, not as our servant, but in an independent act,on his own part, in respect of which his employer was not responsible. We are responsible only for the acts he does for our benefit in the course of his work." The van-driver stated thai when he struck his match he was on the opposite side of the par from the place where the benzine was leaking. He denied that he had heard any horn signal, > Expert evidence was given for the defence in regard to value and damage. In his address Mr. Finlay put it to the jury that. the accident would not have happened,if Newdick had taken, a second or two to make sure whether the van was moving before attempting to drive past it. Findings of the Jury. The issues submitted by His Honor to the jury, and the answers given, were as follow: (1) Was the driver of defendant's van, when he lighted a match (a) engaged exclusively on his own business ? (No answer);'or (b) engaged on his master's business ?—-Yes. (2) Was the servant of the defendant company guilty of negligence which • resulted- in the destruction of plaintiff's car ?—-Yes. (3) Was the plaintiff guilty of negligence ?—No answer lx (4) If both parties were guilty of negligence then were both parties equally to blame for the collision which caused the .damage ? —No answer. (5) If the parties were not equally,to blame, then whose negligence was the direct proximate cause of th* accident: (a) Was it the negligence oi Nathan's driver? (b) Was it the plaintiff's negligence?—No answers. (6) What damages is plaintiff entitled to recover: (a) In respect of injury done to plaintiff's car by reason of the collision only ?—£l2 10s. (b) In respect of the whole of the injury sustained by piaintiff ?—£l7s " On a Tumultuous S&a," His Honor asked whether cdhnsel wished to go further upon-the law points in••oived. Mr. Finlay said he thought it his duty to do eo. Since the verdict the position was that the parties were, in the words' o:f the late Mr. Justice Salmond, embarked upon "a tumultuous B§a without chart or guidance," His Honor said he thought it was clear that the proximate cause of ths damage was the spilling of the petrol. If it happened that someone afterwards set it alight, that did not exonerate the man who did the damage from responsibility." Consideration of the legal -position was daferred until this afternoon, Mr. Finlay intimating that his motion would be that judgment should be restricted to £l2 10s damage by the actual collision.