MOTORISTS CLAIM DAMAGES.

Putaruru Press, Volume XI, Issue 510, 23 February 1933, Page 1

MOTORISTS CLAIM DAMAGES.

SEQUEL TO COLLISION. On Matamata-Okoroire Road. Judgment for Plaintiff. Plans and miniature motor cars were much in evidence in the Matamata Court on Thursday, when Mr. S. L. Paterson, S.M., heard a claim for damages arising out of a motor collision on the Okoroire-Matamata road on May 29, 1932. The case was one in which Norman Davis Clifford, farmer, of Morrinsville (Mr. McGregor), sued Herbert John Walmsley Scott, farmer, of Putaruru (Mr. F. W. Hutchison), for the sum of £34 8s 6d for damages and repairs, and Scott counter-claim-ed for £43 2s sd.

After hearing the evidence of the occupants of the cars, the Magistrate entered judgment for plaintiff for the full amount claimed. Plaintiff’s Case. Plaintiff said the accident happened about 6.10 p.m. when he had his lights on. He was travelling to Matamata at about 30 miles per hour and had just passed a car when he saw the lights of the next car shining round the corner. His left hand wheels were on the grass at the time The bitumen at this point was 16 feet wide. The other car when approaching suddenly veered into his car, striking him about the middle of the front wheel. Plans and photographs showing skid marks and damage to car were then submitted to the court, and the collision demonstrated by the use of toy motor cars. Plaintiff, continuing, said that his mother and cousin were with him in the car. Just after Hie accident ■‘he traffic inspector and assistant-engi-neer of the Matamata County Coun Cil had come along. Cross-examined, plaintiff said there were three in the front seat. He admitted he did not apply his brakes, as he feared his car might topple over. He did not remember having to bend back the bumpei when they changed his front wheel. Engineer’s Evidence. Bert McKenzie, assistant-engineer, Matamata County Council, stated that he appeared on the scene shortly after the accident and, judging from what he saw, he thought the accident occurred on Clifford’s side of the road. The lamps and front of Clifford’s car were not damaged. He was satisfied it was the brake drum which made the mark on the road, and demonstrated this with the dam-

aged wheel which was produced. The brake drum would easily slide on the bitumen. The deep rut would be made when the rim of the drum first hit the road. The Magistrate then intimated that he did not wish to hear any more evidence for the plaintiff. Evidence for Defendant. Defendant gave evidence that he was in the car driven by his daughter when the accident occurred. He had given her instructions to drive slowly as they had a sick dog on board. He saw the car coming, and the next thing he knew they were twirling around in the air. He could not say the other car changed its course. He considered their car was on its correct side of the road. After the accident, when he found his wife and daughter were not hurt, he ran after the other car, thinking it was a case of “ hit and run.” He asked for the name and number. It took three of them to straighten the bumper of Clifford’s car. Later they found that his daughter was cut on the knee which necessitated a couple of stitches. He could not say how far his car travelled after the accident.

Cross-examined, witness admitted that all the spokes and the marks were on his wrong side of the road. To the Magistrate, witness admitted that the marks might have been made by both cars, and that they were on the wrong side of the road. The Magistrate remarked that if the marks were' all made by plaintiff’s car, then they were all on his

correct side of the road. If made by defendant’s car, then they were on the wrong side of the road. Mrs. Scott, wife of previous witness, said that she could see the side of the road clearly and their car was well over on their right side of the road. She heard Clifford say it was no use blaming each other. She considered he was to blame. Clifford’s lights seemed to come right at them. Carlie Scott, daughter of previous witnesses, and driver of the car, said she was well over on her correct side and did not look at the lights of the oncoming car. Instead of disappearing past them the lights suddenly came right at them. Cross-examined, witness said she had been driving for nearly three years and was used to night driving*

Insurance Adjuster’s View,

Clement Eustace Shakeshaft, adjuster, said he was on the scene of the accident the following afternoon. He had noticed one spoke of Scott’s wheel was well worn, and the mark on the road, which showed small stones gouged out, was, in his opinion, made by the spoke.

The Magistrate asked if the place of impact was between the two I marks, did it not mean that Scott’s car was well on the wrong side of the road. In reply, witness said that he held that two cars striking in the centre of the road would veer over before making the marks. The Magistrate interjected that a thousand witnesses could not overcome certain facts. The first point was that all the marks were on the defendant’s wrong side. The second point was that the engineer, a totally independent witness, stated that he had followed the major mark to plaintiff’s car in the bank. The photographs also showed the marks on the wrong side. Magistrate’s Summary.

As in all motor collision cases, there was a conflict of evidence. An accident took place in a flash, and it was to be expected that versions of it would differ. It was natural for parties in a car to support their driver, for it was human nature to be partisan. However, all of the marks were on the wrong side for the defendant. A man of standing, the assistant county engineer, who was accustomed to road work and naturally observant, had come along shortly after the accident and had traced one of the marks right over to plaintiff’s damaged front wheel. Under the circumstances he would give judgment for plaintiff. It was not an uncommon tendency for a driver to edge over toward the lights of an oncoming car. He could only conclude that the driver of defendant’s car unconsciously edged over. Counsel for defendant submitted that general damages had not been proved.

The Magistrate replied that plaintiff had stated the damages in his evidence, and he had not been crossexamined on the point. Counsel: It is not for me to build up his case. The Magistrate pointed out plaintiff had established a prima facie case on the point, and it had been for counsel for the defence to crossexamine on the point if he had any doubts.

Judgment was then entered for the full amount claimed.