CLAIM AND COUNTER-CLAIM

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22832, 17 March 1936, Page 3

CLAIM AND COUNTER-CLAIM

SEQUEL TO COLLISION BOTH PARTIES NEGLIGENT A claim and counter-claim for damages ns the result of n motor collision was heard at the Magistrate’s Court yesterday before Mr J, R. Bartholomew, S.M. John Simm, a taxi proprietor, claimed £55 3s 9d for repairs and £3O for depreciation to his car and £l2 for loss of earnings, a total amount of £O7 3s !)d, from Edward Saul Solomon, a clerk, who counter-claimed £44 12s for repairs and £2O for depreciation to his car and £l4 for the loss of use of the car, a total of £7B 12s. Mr B. S. Irwin appeared for Simm, and Mr D. A. Solomon for Solomon. The claims arose out of a collision which occurred on October 15 at the, intersection of Castle street and Dundas street. Simm’s claim was based on allegations that the defendant was travelling too fast, that lie failed to give proper warning, and that he failed to exercise all due care. The counter-claim was made on similar grounds. Evidence was given by the parties and by Constable Kirk, C. Spence, an eyewitness, and H. G. Calvert, motor assessor. Giving his decision, the magistrate said that this was the ease of an accident which should never have happened. Both Simm and Solomon were approaching an intersection where there was no other traffic and each had only to watch the other car. Simm’s evidence was rather curious and it was to be hoped that taxi drivers in general did not follow his principles. He stated that he saw Solomon’s car approaching the intersection at about tbe same distance from it as his own. He did not state anything about Solomon's speed, but apparently be decided he could get across before him. The next thing that happened was that he was struck by Solomon’s car. Solomon’s car was approaching from (he right, and, though it did not give him any free hand, it imposed on Simm the need for extra caution. This had not been taken and Simm, therefore, had been negligent. If Solomon was travelling too fast that fact would make it all the more necessary for Simm to be cautious. As for Solomon, ho stated that ho braked when he saw Simm was not going to give way, but was too late to avoid the accident. Solomon had the right of way in the first place, but lie should have seen Simm’s intention to proceed in sufficient time for him to have, avoided the collision. This was not the case of an emergency, but of a developing situation, Solomon had ample warning and, although Simm had been more blameworthy, ho should have been able to provide against the other's negligence. The magistrate stated that from the evidence lie also drew the inference that each partv had been travelling at a faster speed than that stated. The negligence on each side was so related that neither could be held responsible for the damages caused. He accordingly gave judgment for tbe defendant in the claim and for the defendant in the counter-claim, each party to pay its own costs.