MOTOR COLLISION CASE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21688, 5 July 1932, Page 5

MOTOR COLLISION CASE

JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF NO CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE. In the Magistrate’s Court yesterday, before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M., Ivan Ralston, a contractor, of Allanton, proceeded against Edward Cleary to recover £4O 8s as damages and depreciation to his car consequent upon a collision with defendant’s car on Good Friday. Cleary counter-claimed for £7O 9s for damages and depreciation suffered by his car in the accident.

The collision occurred at the intersection of Gray street and the main highway at Allanton, plaintiff giving evidence, stating that he was in the middle intersection when his car, which was being driven by his brother, was struck by Cleary’s car. He attributed the accident to Cleary’s negligence in failing .to give way to traffic on the right. He also alleged failure on the- part of defendant to keep a proper look out and excessive speed. Defendant submitted that the accident was a result of plaintiff’s failure to keep a proper look out, and to exercise reasonable care in attempting to cross a main highway from a side street in the face of oncoming traffic. Defendant contended that Ralston, having the last opportunity of avoiding a collision by the exercise of reasonable care and skill, failed to apply his brakes and stop his car in time.

After hearing lengthy evidence concerning the actual collision and the testimony of experts with relation to the damage suffered by, the vehicles, the magistrate gave judgment for plaintiff. He said that clearly on defendant's own admission he was guilty of gross negligence. A speed of 30 to 35 miles per hour might be legitimate on a main highway with no crossings, a clear view and no obstacles, but in this instance the defendant was approaching the intersection of Gray street, and saw the other car coming along slowly. He assumed that it was going to stop, and said he had reasons for the assumption, but in his Worship’s view they were not reasons at all. He should have known that if he, maintained his speed and the other car continued to come on a collision would be inevitable. But he simply went gaily on. His duty was to keep an eye on the car coming into the main road, and that he did not do so was borne out by the fact that he could not say where he was when the plaintiff's car reached the intersection. He was obviously guilty of gross negligence. With respect to the allegation of contributory negligence on plaintiff’s part the magistrate said he considered that Ralston bad carried out his duty in regard to exercising every care in entering the main road from a side road. He paid attention to traffic coming on big right, more especially since he had not a clear view on that side, and he was entitled to believe that traffic coining on his left would look out for itself. He crossed the intersection watching his right am! then found the defendant’s car bearing down on his left. He could not see where there had been any contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff. There may have been an error of judgment on Ralston’s part in not gauging correctly the speed of the approaching car. but it was not easy to do that from the front of a moving vehicle. Plaintiff was entitled to judgment with costs on the larger amount. A deduction of £3 would be made from the full amount of his claim in consideration of the fact that the damaged battery of the car was not new, so that judgment would be for £37 Bs, with costs f£6 10s), and witnesses’ expenses (£3 9s).