MOTORING NEGLIGENCE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20303, 10 July 1929, Page 9

MOTORING NEGLIGENCE.

THE DUTIES OK DRIVERS.

LAW AND ITS REQUIREMENTS.

"A motor-driver is not liable for an accident if in an extreme emergency lie docs not do the best thing under the circumstances," said Mr. R. G. Sellar iri an address on negligence in motoring at (lie luncheon of the Karangahapc Road Business Promotion Society yesterday. Tlio speaker said that the law demanded only what would be expected from a reasonable man. It was not negligence because an action fell short of perfection. A breach of the Motor Regulations, 1928, would not necessarily prove negligence, said Mr. Sellar. The motorist was required to keep to the left, but if the road was clear ho could use any jiart of it. A decision bearing on this point had denied the right to recover damages to a man who had driven at an excessive speed on his correct- sido and had come into collision with a car driven on the wrong sido of the road. Although the accident would not have occurred if both parties had been on their correct sides of the highway the driver who had speeded had been guilty of contributory negligence. Although the duty imposed on a motorist varied vastly, there was a general requirement that he should keep a lookout, give warning and use ordinary skill and care. The l;nv demanded u degree of care tempered to the circumstances.' Visibility, the proximity of intersections, surfaco conditions and the presence of warning-signs were alt taken into consideration.

It had broil held that. a. driver had been negligent in driving at from eight to ton miles an hour on a wet and windy night. Wnuiing of approach was required when thoro was likely to l<« danger, but the Appeal Court had ruled that there was 110 obligation to sound a warning if persons observed ahead wero at a distance which would allow them adequate time to avoid a collision. There was usually no negligence ivi leaving a car unattended and carefully braked, but if a car was parked on ;» hill and tho brakes were by an inquisitive small boy negligence might bo established. It had been held that •'* motorist should anticipato such interference. . "You are liable for tho injury of friends to whom vou may give a lift, said Mr. Sellar. Although a passenger inav have been giveu a rido with tho most friendly intentions ho had a claim if the driver was negHgout. A car owner allowing a prospective purchaser to drive had been held responsible for the act of tho driver in his presence Tho .ownci was equally liable for his.fnond at tho

Wl '■£!' law a man is not liable for tho consequences of an error > jug » although to my mind tho Courts " , mako enough of this aspe ' 10 V accident cases," concluded the spea*