RULE OF THE ROAD

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21985, 21 June 1933, Page 6

RULE OF THE ROAD

c MOTOR COLLISIOi! CASE AN INTERESTING JUDGMENT • (Pee United Press Association.) NELSON, June 20. An interesting judgment in a motor collision case was given to-day by Mr T. E. Maunsell, S.M. On December 30 last a service car owned by Gibbs (Nelson) Motors, Ltd., came into collision with a Christchurch car at an intersection. The driver of the Christchurch car (Mr L. P. Smith) was thrown over the wall of the Nile street bridge into the brook below, and subsequently waa convicted on a charge of driving at a dangerous speed. In the present case Mr Maunsell was. considering further proceedings in which Gibbs Motors, Ltd., sued L. P. Smith for £3l 15s 6d for alleged damages to the service car hf. the collision. The magistrate upheld the contention of the defendant that although there had been negligence in the driving of the defendant’s car there was also negligence in the driving of the service car, and the plaintiff could not succeed. He ’said that in accident* of this kind in almost every case the principle of-,,the least opportunity of avoiding an accident did not apply, because the negligence of both parties wbi almost simultaneous. The service car driver was clearly guilty of a breach of the “offside” rule. It was conceded by plaintiff’s counsel that failure to observe the rule was prima facie negligence, but it could bo rebutted, and circumstances might arise in which it would be rebutted. An instance would be where the driver of a car passed an intersection without knowing it wa* there,* but in this case the plaintiff wa* well aware, of the intersection and its nature and proceeded on his course without taking any special precautions to see there was no approaching vehicle on his right. The object of the rule was to provide for ; cases such as this and to prevent collisions at intersections. Judgment for the plaintiff: would lull motorists into false security by giving, the idea that the “offside” rule need not be strictly observed. This was not so. If a motorist were approaching an intersection in which he could not see to the right he must assume that a ear might he approaching from the right and anticipate the possibility of having to give way. He was not entitled to say that he did not know if there were coming or not. The rule waa a valuable rule, and if properly observed by all drivers safety on the road was greatly increased. In the circumstances the plaintiff must fail and judgment would be foi; the defendant, with costs.