A MOTOR COLLISION.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19969, 10 December 1926, Page 12

A MOTOR COLLISION.

CLAIM AND COUNTER-C -M (Peb United Peess Association.) INVERCARGILL- December 9. Mr G. Cruickshank, S.M., to-day gav.e his reserved judgment in a case arising out of a motor ,;.'!lision on the ’iuatapere Otautau road. L i : case, which was heard on November 30, James Wren and Co., Dunedin, proceeded against William Armstrong M‘Ca\V, architect to the Southland Education Board, for £B3 11s 3d, alleged to be the loss suffered by them as a result of a collision between defendant's car and a ford coupe driven by their traveller. As the defendant was engaged on the business sof the board at the time the accident occurred, the board was joined as a defendant, and brought forward a counter-claim for £49 9s 2d. The defendant contended that after the accident the driver of the Ford Coupe, Charles M’Kague, and he mutually agiecd that, as they wore both in the wrong they should each boar their own expenses Mr Callan (for plaintiff), contended that no such arrangements had been arrived at. His Worship gave judgment for the Education Board on the claim, and for Janice Wren and Co. on the counterclaim, and ordered the plaintiff company to pay the costs of the Education Board and the defendant. In giving judgment his Worship said. This is a claim, and also a counter-claim, for damages arising out of a collision between the parties’ cars on the OrawiaOtautau road. The evidence as to what occurred is contradictory, but I accept iHe story of the defendant as being the more probable of the two versions put before the court. In this I am merely guided by the nature of the injuries received by the cars. The defendant came round a corner climbing the hill on his 12 h.p. Morris car on top gear, and going about 12 miles per hour, hugging the clay bank on his wrong side because that side of the road was smoother, The distance from the corner to the crest of the was one chain and a half. The plaintiff in his Ford car came over the top and down the hill at about 20 miles per hour. He says he was' going only 12, but he must nave been going faster. The defendant was prima facie negligent if the plaintiff came slowly on his proper side, and did not see the defendant until they met on the corner. Then the plaintiff would be entitled to recover, but that is not what happened. The plaintiff in the short down hill of one chain and a-half, sesung the defendant hard against the bank, came across from the middle or far side cf the road and tried to get on to his proper side—that is to get* in between the Morris car and the hank. It was an injudicious thing to do, as the Morris car had very little way on, and could not get over t to its proper side in time to avoid the inevitable collision. A ear coming down hill is easier handled than, one going up. and the latter is entitled to the more consideration If the defendant had stopped and waved his hand so as to indicate to the plaintiff 'to pass the defendant on his wrong side then 1 think the plaintiff would be responsible for the defendant s darrwe. Both parties, however were negligent, or committed errors of judgment. and neither can .recover from the other. As the defendant took up position from the first the plaintiff must pay the costs of the action.