MOTOR COLLISION.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21198, 2 December 1930, Page 5

MOTOR COLLISION.

1 CLAIM FOR DAMAGES. At- a sitting of the Magistrate’s Court held yesterday before Mr J. B. Bartholomew, S.M., Francis Finlayson (Dunedin) proceeded'against George Jardine (Oamaru) ; on’a claim for £33. 6s 6d. Mr A. W. Bubbler represented the plaintiff, and Mr;H. J. S. Grater ‘ (Oamaru) appeared for the. defendant.* The statement of claim showed that on March B,of this year, while'the plaintiff was travelling" on the toad from Lovell’s Flat to Kaitangata a motor car, owned by the defendant and ’driven by William, Wall, collided with, a motor car owned by the plaintiff and driven by his son, Brendon Finlayson. Plaintiff claimed that the collision was caused the negligence of; Wall in that he failed to maintain a proper look-out, that he failed to apply his brakes or .to stop his car in sufficient time to avoid the plaintiff’s car, that, he was .travelling at an excessive or improper speed, and that he failed to comply with the requirements of the motor regulations in that he did not keep to his proper side of the road. The cost of repairing the damage to plaintiff’s oar had been’£33 6s 6d. *

. Evidence was given hy W. A. Hamer and ;.W, I. Tait, passengers in the plaintiff’s car. They stated that the car was travelling on the left side of the road at a slow rate of speed on account of the nature of the , road. Reaching a corner, the defendant’s car was seen approaching at speed. It took the corner on the wrong side and crashed into the plaintiff’s car, tearing off the right front wheel and damaging the tight front fender. . • Adam Hall, flourmiller, of Milton, said he had arrived on the scene of the accident some time afterwards,. The defendant’s car had- gone on ’ then. Ho gave evidence regarding the marks he had seen on the road. There was a skid mark across the road. It could not have been made by a broken wheel. He did not think it was possible for Finlayson’s car to have made' it, . There, were marks on the other side of the road which seemed to indicate that another car had pulled up there. Ernest Sinclair, of Lovell’s Flat, . said he had common the scene,of the-accident while both cars were " there* By the marks, he was of. opinion that the skid had been made by the defendant’s car. Brendon Finlayson, driver of the plaintiff’s car, said he', was going slowly as he approached the bend ■ where, the accident had happened. His speed would he about 15' m.p.h. As he approached the bend he sounded' the horn. The ground where the accident took place was fairly level. When he first saw the defendant’s car it would be about two feet from the bank and on its wrong, side. It was going at about 20 m.p.h. and ,was about two bar lengths away when witness first saw it. Witness immediately stopped his car. The other machine swerved out, but not sufficiently to miss plaintiff's cat. He gave details of the damage done. It was the rear portion of the defendant’s car which struck the other. Witness’s car did not go more that two feet after the impact. When witness got out he found , a skid mark reaching from .underneath his broken hub to the rear of the defendant’s machine. His car did not leave, any skid marks. The parties discussed the accident, and, on the plaintiff's suggestion, witness took several photographs.. He also made a sketch. The plaintiff had taxed Walls with being on his wrong side of the road, but it was denied. He had also said to Walls that . he had been travelling at a “ fair speed.” ! —To Mr Grater: Witness had been driving .for six years and he considered ho could judge the speed of the defendant’s cei faiFly acfiorateiy.

. Evidence. was given by the plaintiff. Francis Finlayson, who said that be. had no. doubt that -the defendant’s car . had cat the comer. He had not felt the impact at all. The - defendant’s car had skidded .right a<ftoss the road and'there was a distinct mark’ where the right rear wheel had • come-to rest. ■ Witness hid traced a wheel mark from a few feet in -front of his car to where the skid began underneath. It was a smooth mark and Jardine’a rear wheel had the tread worn off‘the tyre.—To Mr Grater: Mr Wall had not suggested to witness that it was his car which had made the sldd mark. "

Mr Grater said the defence would be that the accident had been caused by the negligence of the plaintiff _in taking the comer too fast and having to -go out wide in order to get round. ; William George Wall, driver of the defendant’s oar, said that he had come up the hill to the bend in second' gear. He was on the correct side of the mad. The car was'not pulling well and witness expected to have to change down :again. His speed • would be about 10 m.p.h. When witness first saw Finlayson’s car it'was about the middle of the'road. He would estimate its speed at about‘,26 m.p.h. Witness did not alter his position on the road. The front parts of both cars passed.and witness then heard a crash. His car stopped almost immediately, the engine stalling; Witness did not feel any skid at all. He considered the mark had been made by the broken wheel on Finlayson’s car. Jardine’s car had received some damage to the right rear mudguard. He could not say whether the other marks on the road corresponded to the tread on Finlayson’* tyres. Witness also pointed out his marks behind his car to Finlayson, Finlayson had inquired - whether Jnrdine’s-car were insured.- He had also said that if Jardine were prepared to pay the first £5 of the damage that would be all right.' Jardine had . refused to do this as he considered he was in the right.-—To Mr Buchler: Witness did not see Finlayson’s car sldd across the road.

Elizabeth Jardiue, wife of the defendant, also gave evidence.—To Mr Bubbler: The skid mark was ragged. It did not look as though it had been made by ,a tyre.

. The magistrate said he would take time to consider the evidence and reserved his decision.