CLAIM FOR DAMAGES

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22023, 4 August 1933, Page 5

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES

SEQUEL TO COLLISION MAGISTRATE TO VIEW SCENE. The Magistrate’s Court was occupied during the greater part of yesterday with the hearing of a claim for damages arising out of a collision between a horse and cart and a motor car. —After hear; ing lengthy evidence, the magistrate (Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M.) adjourned the ease to allow him to inspect the scene of the accident.

The case was one in which John Mamie Booth (Dunedin) and Amy Sprott (Pino Hill) proceeded against Ernest Frederick Bush (Dunedin) on a joint claim for £24 3s. The statement of claim set out that on the night of June 11 one of the plaintiffs, Amy Sprott, was driving a horse and cart in VVoodhaugh street (Woodhaugh) en route to Dunedin, the cart and harness being her own property, but the horse being the property of John Mamie Booth. When approaching the corner at' the eastern end of Woodhaugh street a collision occurred between the horse and cart and a car driven and owned by the defendant, proceeding in a westerly direction. The accident, it was alleged, arose solely through the negligence of the defendant in (a) failing to keep a proper look out; (b) failing to keep to his proper side of the road when turning the comer. Booth stated that he was severely shaken by the collision and that the horse was severely injured, and therefore claimed the sum of £l4 as damages for the injuries to the horse; £3 3s representing the amount paid out in veterinary surgeon’s ,fees; £2 for his personal injuries and loss of time incurred by the results of the collision —a total of £l9 3d. Amy Sprott claimed £3 10s, representing damages to her cart; and £1 10s as damages to the harness—a total of £5.

Mr C. J. L. White appeared for the plaintiffs, and the defendant was represented by Mr C. B. Barrowclough.

Outlining the case for the plaintiffs, Mr White said that on June 11 Booth and Mrs Sprott w'ere driving in from Leith Valley in a cart owned by Mrs Sprott, the horse being the property of Booth. As they were approaching the corner at the cast end of Woodhaugh street they saw the lights of an approaching vehicle shining on a house. They could tell from the lights that the car was on the wrong side of the road. Mrs Sprott, who was driving, called out to the horse to stop, and Booth shouted out to the driver of the ear as it came round the %corncr. The latter was unable to pull up, and, coming round the corner on his wrong side, collided with the horse. The horse, which was so far over to the side that its front feet wore on the' footpath, was lifted up by the impact on to the radiator of the car and carried for some distance. Booth was thrown out of the cart and received some injuries. The horse was badly injured, both shafts were broken, and the harness was damaged beyond repair. The horse, which had been a trotter, was purchased by Booth some weeks previously as a speculation, and, as the result of the injuries it received, it was doubtful if it would ever be of any further use. In any case it could not be us ( ed for 12 or 18 months.

Evidence along these lines was given by John Mamie Booth, who said that the defendant had admitted to him that he was on the wrong side of the road.

Alexander Lawrcnson, a veterinary surgeon, gave evidence regarding the injuries to the horse. ‘ For the defence, Mr Barrowelough said it was admitted that the corner at which the accident had occurred was a dangerous one. It was contended that the defendant had not in any way been guilty of negligence. Evidence would be called to show that the defendant took the corner on the course normally followed by traffic. He came round slowly, sounded his horn and actually came to a stop. There was never any collision, but it was contended that the horse reared up and struck the car, receiving its injuries in this manner. Counsel submitted that the plaintiffs were negligent to the extent that they had the last opportunity of avoiding the accident. They could easily have stopped, and no accident would then have occurred. It was also contended that the plaintiffs were driving well on the wrong side of the road, and that when they saw the car approaching they pulled the horse over to the side, with the result that the horse and cart were brought at right angles to the road. Counsel claimed that the question of negligence was so mixed up that either party was debarred from claiming negligence against the other. In addition, evidence would be brought to show that there was a third person in the cart, and as the result of this the light, which the plaintiffs claimed was carried on the cart, was, it was contended, obscured from view. Evidence for the defence was given by the defendant and by Margaret Jane Wilson, Margaret Annie Wilson and Ada Wilson, who were passengers in the car at the time of the accident, and Alfred Spoor, who gave evidence regarding the value of the horse and cart. Alexander Williamson Crichton, who, it was alleged by the defence, was the third person in the cart at. the time of the accident stated that he was in bod on the night on which the accident occurred.

After hearing all the evidence, the magistrate said it would be an advantage to view the scene of the accident. He therefore adjourned the case to allow him to visit the spot to-day.