CLAIM FOR DAMAGES

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22286, 12 June 1934, Page 4

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES

NEGLIGENT DRIVING ALLEGED A YEAR-OLD ACCIDENT How: a serious collision occurred when according to both parlies their respective cars were practically at a, standstill was one of the questions Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M., had to determine at a special sitting of the Magistrate's Court yesterday when a claim was made on behalf of a passenger in one of the cars. The plaintiff made allegations of negligence and dangerous , driving, and the defendant, a man over 80 years of age, claimed that he was blinded by the headlights of the car in which the plaintiff was travelling. William Roger Owens, of Kaitangata, an infant, by, his next friend, Henry Owens, of Kaitangata, miner, claimed from Andrew Nelson, of Brighton, farmer, the sum of £6O for general damages and £2O 4s special damages for injuries received in a motor car collision on the Main South road on March 6,1933. The statement of claim set out that on March 6, 1933, the plaintiff was proceeding in a motor car driven by George William Thomas in a southerly direction along the Main South road, and when in the vicinity of Titri railway station a collision occurred with a car driven by the defendant, who was proceeding nbrth along the same road. It was claimed that the collision occurred through the negligence of the defendant (a) .in failing to keep a proper lookout for traffic approaching from the north, (b) in failing to keep to his left or proper side of the road, (c) in travelling on the wrong side of the road on negotiating a bend immediately south of the accident, (d) in driving his car recklessly and generally in a dangerous manner to the public. Plaintiff said that as a result of the accident he received injuries to the head and concussion of the brain. He still suffered from headaches and was able to do only light work. He claimed for loss of wages, medical expenses, and damaged clothing. Mr C. J. L. White appeared for the plaintiff and Mr G. B. P. Wilson for the defendant. Mr White said that this case was a sequel to previous litigation in which the two drivers of the cars were concerned. In that case the magistrate held that he could not say which of the two was to blame. This was now a claim by a passenger, and different legal considerations arose. Contributory negligence on the part of the driver of rhe other car was no defence, and the defendant being on the wrong side of the road must show that the accident was entirely due to the negligence of the other driver, and that he himself was not guilty of any negligence. In this case the plaintiff had come into town with a Mr Thomas from Kaitangata for the day. They were returning in the evening with Mrs Thomas and two children in the car, and when approaching a bend just south of the Titri railway station a car driven by the defendant crashed into Thomas's car right over on Thomas's correct side of the road. The defendant was an old man, over 80 years, of age, and ho should never have been permitted to drive a motor car at such an age. “No man over 70 should be allowed to drive,” declared Mr White, “ and the fact that a man over 80 was given a license was scandalous. The defendant bad admitted that his eyesight was defective and that he was not used to driving at night.” Counsel added that the plaintiff, who was 17 years of ug 1 *, was asleep at the time of the accident. He had had to give up work at the mine, and had received more or less severe injuries to the head.

Several witnesses were called for the plaintiff, and George William Thomas, the driver of tho car in which the plaintiff was a passenger, said ’ that some distance from the corner he saw lights coming round, through the trees, and he eased up so as not to meet on the corner. The other car came round the corner >n the wrong side and bore right down on him, still on the wrong side. Its lights were brighter than those of his car. The newcomer was travelling at about 30 miles an hour. Witness applied the brakes, and was practically stopped when

the collision occurred. They were practically head on. Witness had,, no opportunity of avoiding the accident. Witness went over to the driver of the other car and asked him if he knew he was on the wrong side of the road. The reply was, “Yes, but I don’t know how I got here.” Witness’s lights were shining on the hill and not on the other car. He was about six chains from the corner when he first saw the other car. To Mr Wilson witness said that he had been driving off and on for a couple of years, and had owned the present car for nearly a year. Defendant travelled from the bend to where the accident happened, about three chains, on the wrong side of the road. To Mr White: There was no question by the defendant of being dazzled until after the police arrived.

Mr Wilson said that he would like to comment on the unsatisfactory circumstances in bringing this case when the witnesses could not remember exactly what had happened. Defendant was an old man, and his memory naturally was not as good as it might be. He admitted that he was on the wrong side of the road when the collision occurred, but denied negligence on his part. As he got a view of the Titri station corner. Thomas’s car, came round the corner, and the defendant was, dazzled by the lights. The character of the road was such that instead of losing the dazzle of another car, a car approaching from the defendant’s direction' would remain in the beam of light. For that reason the defendant was unable to see that there was a slight bend in the road, and he unwittingly crossed, the corner on to the wrong side. He pulled up in an approximately short space of about 30 yards. A man did not proceed on the wrong side of the road for no reason whatever, added counsel, and the fact that he did cross the corner showed that he was dazzled. It was. impossible for anyone at the Titri station corner to see another car coining round the southern bend.

The defence called expert evidence to show that in a car of the make and model .Thomas was driving—a New Beauty Ford—the headlights were rather like a concentrated spotlight. They threw an uhdiffused beam, and differed from, other cars in that respect. Andrew Nelson, the defendant, said that he had been driving cars for over 20 years. At the time of the accident his wife was the only other occupant of the car. He had been blinded by the lights of the other qar, and had stopped after travelling 20 paces. Thomas was travelling at a faster rate of speed than the defendant was, but defendant was not prepared to give an estimate of the speed. Defendant’s car was at a standstill when the collision occurred.

Ellen Nelson, wife of the defendant, also gave evidence, saying that the car was never driven at more than 30 miles an hour. At the time of the collision the car was stopped. Constable Southgate said that the collision was a head on one. The defendant was excited, but seemed quite rational after the accident. In reply to Mr White witness said that he did not think there was much excuse for a motorist to be on his wrong side on that part of the road. If Nelson’s car had been on the pjoper eide when he was dazzled it must have crossed the road and straightened up before the collision. There was no side skid after the impact. In his statement the defendant had said that he was going slowly at the time of impact. Kenneth James Lindsay said that he had conducted a good many experiments in regard to motor accidents, and said that with certain motor car lights it was possible to be dazzled at a distance of seven chains. Ho would not expect a man who was dazzled to keep to the curve of the road at this spot. Under certain conditions it was possible for a car coming from the south to remain in the lights of another car for a good distance of this locality and under tho circumstances claimed by the defence. It was possible for a man who had been dazzled for a distance of about a chain to remain blinded for some time after the lights had left his eyes.

This concluded the evidence, and the magistrate reserved his decision.