MOTOR CARS COLLIDE.

Taranaki Daily News, 14 December 1921, Page 7

MOTOR CARS COLLIDE.

A STRATFORD ACCIDENT. CLAIM FOR DAMAGES. CASE IN SUPREME COURT. A case which arose oul of a motor collision which took, place in the main street of Stratford on the evening of January 22 was heard by Mr. Justice Reed and a special jury of four in the Supreme Court, New Plymouth, yesterday. Plaintiffs, Albert E. White and Ernest D. White, proceeded against Millicent Curtis, alleging that the accident in dispute was the result of her negligent driving. A. E. White claimed £7l 8s Bd, and E. D. White (through his guardian) sought to recover £258. The jury was composed of the following: L. B. Webster, D. J. Hughes, T. Furlong and E. Holden. Mr. Furlong was chosen foreman.

Particulars of plaintiff's case were stated by Mr. Croker, who said that White was driving a motor car (the property of the New Zealand Government) along the main street, which was practically two chains wide, and was going in a northerly direction wnen the accident occurred. He was accompanied by his wife and two children, and was on his correct side of the road. At a point in Broadway, approximately opposite Smith’s shop, on the left-hand side, White had noticed several motor ears standing alongside the kerbing, but there was no indication that any of the cars was about to move. He continued driving at ten to fifteen miles an hour, but when he got opposite Smith’s one of the cars suddenly turned into the middle of the road’without giving the usual sign or any indication whatever of the driver’s intention. There was nothing that White could do, therefore, but to stop his car as soon as possible after he saw that an accident was inevitable, and that was what he did. Miss Curtis was the driver of the second car, and it was claimed that ~shs was negligent in driving the car, and was the primary cause of the accident. Damages claimed by plaintiff, A. E. White were £2l 8s 8d for repairs to the car, and 1 £5O special data ages. E. D. White was an infant, and was suing through his guardian. The amounts claimed on his behalf were £8 8s 6d medical expenses, and £250 general damages. He had suffered a disfigurement he would have to bear for the rest of his life. As the child was young it was quite possible that the permanent injury would not be great, and therefore the damages claimed were light. DETAILS OF THE ACCIDENT.

One of the defences was that ’White was negligent in his control of the car, and that he did not sound his horn. It would be submitted, however, that if the roadway was perfectly clear and that there was no immediate prospect of anyone getting in the way, there was no necessity for him to sound the- horn. If they considered that White was negligent as well as Miss Curtis, counsel asked the jury to' remember that White did everything possible in the circumstances in which he was situated. On the Monday following the accident White personally interviewed Miss Curtis about the mishap, and she agreed that she was responsible; she expressed regret and agreed to pay the damages. Counsel said one feature of the occurrence was that though the accident was a serious one for the boy, Miss Curtis did not even get out of the car to inquire who was hurt or to ascertain anything about the accident. Relating events on the night of the accident, plaintiff said he had been to the train to meet his wife and two children, and was driving along the main street from the station. The boy Douglas, who was hurt, was sitting next to witness and on the off-side Mrs. White was nursing the baby. The time was about 0.45, and as it was summer it was still daylight. He was driving slightly to the left of the middle of the road. He proceeded to give particulars of the accident as outlined by his counsel. He related the injuries sustained to the car, and said that this boy was severely cut about the face by jagged pieces of glass. He was losing a lot of blood, and witness carried him to a chemist’s shop and asked that a doctor be rung up. While there witness noticed the right jawbone was showing through a nasty cut, and there was a V-shaped wound on the throat. He was ordered to hospital and operated upon, and remained there for 23 days.

When he interviewed Miss Curtis afterwards she admitted the accident was her fault, as she had not given warning. As the result of a telephone message he interviewed Curtis and Lockhart on the Monday and about an hour after he had seen Miss Curtis. They said they could not say anything about the accident as they had not gone into it. He met them some time afterwards in the street, and they said they would accept no liability for the accident. They told witness to study his position financially and otherwise. They said they might help him with his expenses, but would not give a guarantee to this effect, stating thkt the family’s reputation was enough. To His Honor: His car was hit in front of the hub on the left-hand wheel, and was still on the move. It was the right-hand side of defendant’s car tliat hit witness’ machine. PLAINTIFF CROSS-EXAMINED. To Mr. Coleman: At the'interview he did not tell Miss Curtis that unless he got paid for the repairs he would lose his job. He denied saying that a courtcase would ruin him. I think on this occasion you were using a car you had no right to? That is a matter between the department and myself. That is a matter for you to answer. Were vou? - Z n - Plaintiff asked His Honor if he nau to reply, and was told to answer the question. He then admitted using a departmental car. Did vou tell Miss Curtis that you were excited at seeing your wife and children and were not paying prope” attention to the traffic? No. . , . Why didn’t you swerve to your right.

—I had no opportunity. I suggest vou were not looking where yon were going, and that you were conversing- with your wife?—No. About 40 feet before the accident you were accosting acquaintances on the footpath? —No. Is not this action brought by you a, a money making attempt without regard to the size of the damages .'-No You are claiming £250 for the boy ’ not a fact that on the night the accident you said you were going to have a cut at the Curtis foi £cooo. I ~ta’t it a fact that at that interview you tried to work on Miss Curtis sym jjaihies?—No.

DOCTORS DIFFER. The question of the effects of the injuries to the boy Edward White, aged 3 years, was dealt with by medical testimony. Dr. E. F. Fookcs, of New Plymouth, said the child had several marks on the face, the chief one being a scar about 1£ inches in length on the right cheek. It would be a permanent mark. He had examined the boy before coming into Court as to the present effects of the injury, and when asked to open his mouth wide he said it hurt. The scar penetrated into the membrane and part of it was adhesive to the jaw-bone. Its size was likely to decrease and the injury might be benefited by a course of massage. Dr. T. A. Milroy, of New Plymouth, described the scar as a permanent one which, however, was likely to grow less visible later on.

Mr. Coleman also called medical evidence on this point. Dr. E. A. Walker, medical superintendent of the New Plymouth Public Hospital, gave his conclusions as the result of his examina-' tion of the child. Be eaid the scar on the right cheek had not yet reached its final stage anl would probably become white in color. As far as he could see there were no permanent injuries in the case.

Dr. W. P. Gordon, of Stratford, said the scar on the right cheek would constitute disfigurement but. would not be permanent in its present condition It would become much less prominent and the redness would disappear. To Mr. Croker. —In his opinion the nervous shock from the wounds would pot be great but would cause pain for three to four days. Thomas E. Pureell, retired civil servant, of Stratford, said he was postmaster at Stratford at the time of White’s accident, and the defendant had claimed that White should put the car in order at his own expense. (EYE-WITNESSES’ EVIDENCE. An eye-witness of the accident was Hugh F. Riley, baker, of Stratford, who was standing opposite the spot waere the accident happened. He saw Miss Curtis start her car, which was standing on the side of the road near the kerbing, and suddenly turn into the middle of the road. He did not remember that she gave any warning, and he did not know which way she was going when she I came out. He could not say whether J White had an opportunity of avoiding the accident, but a person could see there going to be a collision. Norman F. Newbold, farmer, of S.trrtford, said he saw the collision. He had noticed White going along and, seeing the other car shoot out, knew something would happen. He was walking along the street towards the spot where the cars met. In his opinion White had no other course but to try and stop the car. which witness noticed him doing. He thought the wheels of Miss Curtis’ car must have been full-lock before she started, otherwisfe it would not have come round so quickly. Tp Mr. Coleman: He was within three strides of the point where the cars met and saw Miss Curtis' car move off At that time White would be about 36 feet away.

Mrs. Anne B. Hopkins, who was walking along the street at the time of the acc/dent, said Miss Curtis’ car came our, when White (whose speed was from 8 to 10 miles an hour), was almost abreast of it, and as far as she could see White had no opportunity of averting the collision.

Albert V. Vinsen, marble bar manager, who was on the scene after the accident, said the wheel marks of Miss Curtis’ car showed that she turned practically at full-lock. [Regulations governing motor traffic m Broadway were produced by Philip Skoglund, town clerk of Stratford. CASE FOR DEFENDANT. The case for the defence, Mr. Coleman said, was a total denial of the allegation of negligence and a charge of positive neglience on the part of White. An alternative defence of contributory neligence would also be set up. On the evening of the collision Miss Curtis had stopped outside the door of Smith s bakery shop,, but the car was not close into the kerb; in fact, it was standing well out from the other cars lined up. On entering the car she looked behind and saw that there was no vehicular traffic ing; if there had been it must have been at° such a distance that it could have raised no question of danger. She started the ear moving forward a few feet before turning, and at the slowest possible pace moved out on to the centre of the road. According to the evidence she was not going faster than a man coukl.’ walk. If her story was to be believed then the car obviously must have been travelling for about 25 feet acros-t the street at a walking pace before White collided with the machine. If this was so it would require some explanation from White as to why he did not see defendant, and counsel suggested the reason would be made plain in evidence. He was thinking of and doing other , things than attending to watching the road on which he was travelling. He had met his family after a lengthy absence and. was naturally somewhat excited on their return.

In the course of evidence, defendant said she sa>v the red car coming behind as she turned and threw her own car out of gear and put the brake on, thinking that the driver saw her and would pass on. She had stopped before White’s car got up end witness noticed that plaintiff’s wife appeared to be talking to him. The cars collided and the front wheel of plaintiff’s car went under the mudguard of witness’ machineWhite got out of the car and took the little boy away. Witness could not getout of the car as she had a little girl of two with her. , After the accident witness made daily enquiry as to the progress of the boy. She had an interview with White on the Monday following the accident. He said she had broken the by-law by turning the car in Broadway.' She replied that if she had broken the law of course she would have to pay, but she did not know of the by-law. White produced a list of the motor car expenses which she said she would have to pay, and also said he would bring along the doctor’s

accounts as they came in. He also said that a court ease would kill him and that his luck had always been against him. He. admitted that he was excited at the return of his family and was not watching as he should have been. Later witness found out ther». was no by-law in the terms mentioned by White. She had been driving a motor car for eight or nine years. To Mr. Croker: She had agreed to pay the'expenses at first because she thought she had broken a by-law, - which she found did not exist. The by-law Whit* discussed with witness was not lhe one concerning the turning signal. Sh-* denied that her reason for offering to pay was that she knew she was in the wrong EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENCE. Thoma-s Smith, baker, said he passed White on the street just before the mishap and plaintiff nodded to him from the car, turning his head sideways, when witness turned bael£ to the scene of the collision and saw the cars locked together. In his opinion White’s car hit Miss Curtis’. C. S. Lawrence, cabinet-maker, who witnessed the collision from a short distance along the street, said Miss Curtis had driven about the length of the car from the kerb, and was in the act of turning when White’s car hit defendant’? car. He thought White could have avoided the accident by a slight the wheel. To Mr. Curtis: He saw Miss Curtis start off at a slow pace but he could not say how fast she was going at thi time of the collision. It may have been 12 miles per hour but would not be 15. Evidence was also given on the above lines by Mr. R. Mcßeth. William Milne, motor mechanic, who was in company with the previous witness, said he saw Miss Curtis’ car move away from the kerbing about 4 miles an hour and he saw the defendant com ing along in the post office car at a speed something over 12 miles an hour. He thought a sharp turn to the right by White would have avoided the accident. He did not think it was the speed of White’s car that caused the accident, but rather that the driver was not looking. Another witness of the mishap, J. R. Wall, photographer, said he saw White approaching and expected him to sheer off to avoid defendant’s car, as this course was quite open to him. He was quite ten or twelve feet away when Miss , Curtis' car was right out on the street. A. H. Hillock, clothier, said he saw White driving along the street beforcthe accident and knew there was going to be a smash because White was not looking where he was going but was talking With his wife. On the night of the accident White told witness that he was going for the Curtis’ for £2OOO. Evidence had not been concluded when the Court rose at 6 p.m. till th>s morning.