DAMAGES AWARDED

Otago Daily Times, Issue 26289, 22 October 1946, Page 8

DAMAGES AWARDED

COLLISION BETWEEN VEHICLES ACCIDENT AT CAVERSHAM Arising from a collision at the corner of Wilkie road and Neville street. Caversham, on the evening of December 22, between a sedan car and a car converted to a light delivery van, Victor James Crimp, for whom Mr E. J. Anderson appeared, proceeded against Alan Charles Lex Georgeson (Mr J. G. Warrington) on a claim for damages in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday before Mr H. W. Bundle, S.M. The defendant entered a counter-claim for damages. Claim and Counter-claim The plaintiff claimed that on December 22, 1945, he was driving his car in a southwesterly direction, along Wilkie road, between King Edward street, and Neville street, where Neville street emerges from beneath the overhead railway bridge. It was alleged that the defendant was driving a light delivery truck in a northerly direction along Neville street in so negligent a manner that it collided with the car driven by the plaintiff. The negligence, it was alleged, consisted of—(1) Driving at a speed which was too fast, having regard to the necessity for care in emerging from the bridge opening of the road; (2) failing to give way to traffic approaching from the right; (3) failing to keep a proper look-out; (4) failing to sound his horn or otherwise give warning of his approach; (5) failing to ascertain that the plaintiff whs aware of the approach of the defendant’s vehicle before attempting to pass in close proximity to him; and (6) failing to slow down and steer clear of the defendant. The plaintiff was without the use of his car for a considerable period of time as a result of the collision and claimed damages amounting to £9O 9s 3d, comprising £75 9s 3d for repairs and depreciation, and £ls as special damages arising from the loss of the use of the car. The defendant entered a counter-claim of £IOB 10s Bd. He denied the allegation of negligence, and claimed that the plaintiff—(l) Drove at a speed which was too fast in the circumstances; (2) failed to keep a proper look-out; (3) failed to stop or slow down when his vision was obscured by sun glare; (4) failed to stop or steer clear of the defendant's vehicle; and (5) overloaded his vehicle to such an extent that he was not in proper control of it. The defendant claimed that he was without the use of his vehicle for a con-siderable-period as the result of the collision. The defendant claimed £lO general damages and £9B 10s 8d special damages covering the cost of repairs, loss of the use of the vehicle, and depreciation. Lengthy Evidence Heard Evidence was given by the plaintiff and by two of the passengers in his car, Cyril Davies, a taxi proprietor, and William Scobie Conroy, a grocer’s assistant. Jack David Walker, a constable at the South Dunedin Station, produced a map made from measurements taken at the scene of the accident. William Frederick Poole, an employee of the Hillside Workshops, was also called by counsel for the plaintiff. Leslie lan McKay gave evidence for the defence. After the hearing of the evidence, the magistrate said that the plaintiff hadi been driving a car in which there were five passengers, two of whom were in the front seat with him. He said that he appreciated from his own experience that any driver proceeding from Neville street into Wilkie road must exercise extreme care. There was a rise just at the railway bridge, and a driver was given little view of Wilkie road. A driver must drive with extreme care at the intersection. The magistrate said he accepted the evidence of the plaintiff that he was driving at 15 miles an hour along Wilkie road, and that he knew of the intersection. The plaintiff had said that he had had little chance of avoiding the defendant’s van. Mr Bundle added that he had little doubt that the defendant did not reach the intersection at his stated speed of 10 miles an hour, and there was no doubt that the defendant was not exercising real care, and certainly not the extreme care he was required to use. He was turning in such a manner as if he was asumlng that the road was clear, and' on his own evidence the defendant was guilty of negligence. The magistrate awarded damages to the plaintiff in the full amount of the claim. £9O 9s 3d, with costs (£l4 12s).