MOTOR COLLISION DISPUTE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22084, 14 October 1933, Page 9

MOTOR COLLISION DISPUTE

ACCIDENT ON SOUTH ROAD MAGISTRATE DEFERS DECISION A claim and counter-claim for damages arising out of an accident involving two motor cars which occurred on the Main South road near Waihola was heard in the Dunedin Magistrate’s Court yesterday before Mr H. J. Dixon, S.M. Lengthy evidence was , given, and the magistrate reserved his decision. The case was one in which Isabel Harper proceeded against Francis James Walker, of Kauru Hill, on a claim for £72 2s 6d, representing special damages arising from the accident. The statement of claim set out that on April 30 a Chrysler motor car, the property of the plaintiff, was being driven by the plaintiff’s brother, William Smith, along the main highway between Waihola and Milton when a collision occurred between the car and a Ford motor car, owned and driven by the defendant. It 'was alleged that the Ford car was carelessly and negligently controlled by the defendant in that he failed to keep to the left of the centre-line of the road; he failed to keep a proper look out; he failed/ to apply his brakes or to stop in sufficienttime to avoid a collision; and that he did not have his motor car under proper control or exercise reasonable care.

The defendant entered a counter-claim for £42 16s Bd. The counter-claim alleged that the collision was caused by the negligent driving of plaintiff’s brother in that he failed to keep to the left of the centre-line of the road; failed to keep a proper look out; he was driving at an excessive and dangerous speed, and failed to apply the brakes or to stop in time to avoid a collision with defendant’s car.

Mr J. G. Warrington appeared for the plaintiff, and the defendant was represented by Mr J. B. Farrell. William Smith gave evidence that on Sunday night, April 30, he was driving the plaintiff’s car from Dunedin to Table Hill. About a mile south of Waihola he saw a car approaching. He pulled in to the left-hand side of the road, and as the other car approached it seemed all of a sudden to appear right in front. Witness was then going at a speed of about 20 miles an hour. The two cars met head on, and the other car struck witness’s car on the right-hand side. Evidence was also given by Prosper Butler Harper, Ernest John Goodman, James Samuel Burrows, Cyril Patterson and Isabel Harper.

In outlining the case for the defence, counsel said it would be put forward in evidence that the point of Impact was at an entirely different place from that claimed by the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff’s car travelled approximately two chains after the accident happened. The defendant would say that he was driving slowly and taking great care and keeping as close as possible to his side of the road. It would be shown that the other car appeared to skid before the impact and that that was the cause Of the accident. Evidence for the defence was given by the defendant and by Michael James Hanley, Julia Walker, Michael Hanley and Leonard Keogh. The magistrate adjourned the case.