CARS IN COLLISION

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23320, 12 October 1937, Page 5

CARS IN COLLISION

SEQUEL IN COURT JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF Consideration of a claim and counterclaim for damages between John William Adkins and Robert O’Connell Shiel, who were involved in a motor collision at the comer of Forbury road and Macandrew road on the evening of February 16, occupied the attentipn of Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M., at a special sitting of the; Magistrate’s Court yesterday. Mi* E. J. Anderson appeared , for Adkins, and. Mr P. S. Anderson for Shiel. Adkins claimed £l3O 12s 6d, special and general damages, and Shiel in his counterclaim estimated his special and general damages at £233 4s 6d. The plaintiff’s statement of claim was that he had been driving his car south along Forbury road and the defendant was driving behind him. At the intersection of Forbury road and Macandrew road the plaintiff signalled his intention, to turn and proceeded to turn’, and cross Forbury road, but it was contended that the defendant drove his car in such a negligent and unskilful manner as to collide with the plaintiff. It was contended that the defendant had failed to keep a reasonable lookout, had driven at an excessive and unreasonable speed in the circumstances, and had attempted to overtake and pass the plaintiff’s car on an intersection: and on these grounds the plaintiff claimed £55 17s 6d for damages to his car and £69 15s for the hire of a car between February 16 and April 14, during which time his own car was undergoing repair. He also claimed : £5 general damages for the shock suffered. The counterclaim stated that the plaintiff had turned to the right across the line of route of the defendant,' and, on account of the plaintiff failing to keep a proper lookout, crossing without having satisfied himself that the defendant had seen his signal of his intention to turn, failing to stop to avoid a collision as he had the last opportunity to do so, and failing to give an adequate signal of an intention to turn, the defendant claimed £33 4s 6d, for medical and dental attention and loss of wages, and £175, for depreciation in the value of his car. General damages amounting to £25 were also claimed. The scene of the accident and the position of the cars was described by Constable Olliffe and George Schruffer, a retired police constable, who had been called to Forbury road after the accident. John William Adkins stated that, when he approached the intersection of Forbury road and Macandrew road, as he wished to turn into Macandrew road, he changed down into second gear, thus materially reducing his speed, and looked back over his shoulder to see how far back the defendant’s car was. He considered that he had ample time in which to turn. He signalled for an appreciable distance by putting out his arm before he commenced to make the turn. As he turned the defendant collided with him, striking at the side just about opposite the crankcase. He heard no warning sound from the car at the rear. Witness escaped with a slight bruise, but his passengers suffered shock and. minor injuries. The car was extensively damaged, • William Thomas Gladwin, a passenger in Adkins’s car, and Walter Henry Lacey, who witnessed the accident. also gave evidence for the plaintiff. ~ . , Senior Sergeant Packer said Shiel had called on him shortly after the accident, when he was in an excited condition. He had told witness that there had been an accident, but he did not know how it had occurred and'had admitted that he was to blanx*

The defendant, in evidence, stated that he had changed down to second gear when nearing the chuhch in Forbury road and had then proceeded at from 20 to 25 miles per hour. When he was approaching Macandrew road he noticed a car which he thought was parked and which had no lights. His own car had strong lights. He proceeded on towards St. Clair, when his car was suddenly struck on the left-hand side without warning. When he got out of his car he asked Adkins why he had nOt put out his hand, and the plaintiff’s remark was that witness must have speeded up when he approached the intersection. The right-hand front mudguard of his car was about level with the rear of the right front door of the plaintiff’s car. He had not seen any signal given by the plaintiff, and he did not think that his car was moving or showing lights. Referring to the bumper bar, he stated that it would have'been buckled in and not tom off if he had hit the plaintiff’s car, , It was dark at the time, and the street lights had been on for over an hour. Witness had kept a lookout straight ahead and had not seen the plaintiff’s car at all. Evidence as to the damage done to the defendant’s car was given by Henry Louis Paterson, surveyor and civil engineer, who stated that the appearances of the cars showed that Shiel’s car had not hit the side of the plaintiff’s vehicle head on. Arthur Wimpgnny, motor mechanic, gave evidence as to the time the repair work to the plaintiff’s car should have taken. After hearing legal argument from opposing counsel, the. magistrate said that the evidence for the plaintiff was so convincing that he would give - judgment in his favour with out taking time for further consideration. The position of the cars was proved, and the question was how they came into that position. The plaintiff had given evidence as to taking the turn slowly, and he saw no reason to believe that he was going at an excessive speed as any other course than he took would have been nonsensical. A great deal of the defendant’s evidence, on the other hand, was incredible. He had seen a stationary car, but after that one view his mind had been a blank. The evidence satisfied him that the car was not stationary, and if the defendant had kept a lookout he would have seen it. He could not see that the plaintiff was negligent. Even if he had made a mistake in estimating the defendant’s distance away from the corner, he had made only an error of judgment. Shiel should have seen the car. and the resulting accident would not have occurred if he had taken care and kept,a proper lookout, All the man who was turning , could do was to give a proper signal that should be understood and then pay attention to what was &head. It was the motorist behind who should watch out. Judgment would, therefore, be for the plaintiff for the full amount, with costs (£3 9s), solicitor’s fees (£7 10s 6d) and witnesses’ expenses (£1 11s). Judgment would also be given for the plaintiff on the counterclaim, with solicitor’s fees (£ll 13s).