MOTORIST’S NEGLIGENCE

Taranaki Daily News, 28 September 1929, Page 3

MOTORIST’S NEGLIGENCE

ORDERED TO PAY £l5O DAMAGES. RESERVED JUDGMENT AT MANAIA ! ■ As the result of a motor-car driven by H. R, Billing, New Plymouth, colliding with a car driven by J. H. Hudson on the Hawera-Opunake Road, near-its I junction with the Ahipaipa Road, Hudson claimed from Billing £lB3 9s lOd as damages sustained in the collision. The case was heard before Mr. R. W. Tate, S.M., in the Manaia Magistrate’s Court, when judgment was reserved. In giving his decision at Manaia yesterday the magistrate thought the collision was caused entirely by the negliigence of the defendant Billing. He assessed special damages at £l5B 8s lOd, but would not allow general damages. Costs amounting to £23 Is 9d were also allowed the plaintiff. Mr. P. O’Dea represented Hudson and [Mr. C. H. Weston for Billing. I The Ahapaipa Road junctioned with l the Hawera-Opunake Road, not at an angle of 90 degrees, but at an angle of about 75 degrees, said the magistrate. The obtuse angle of the junction was towards Opunake. Commencing from about 50 feet from the junction of. the two tar-sealed strips, the corners had been rounded off and. the actual junction of the two strips was a large triangle, all similarly tar sealed. The base of the triangle rested on the northern edge of the Main Road tar-seal and was between 50 and 60 feet wide. The effect was that 50 feet back from the margin of the main road the tar-seal of the Ahipaipa Road widened until it became over 50 feet wide at its junction with the main road tar-seal. The whole space was equally available for -traffic, which “hugged” the side on which it was travelling, leaving the centre of the triangle almost as the road ; makers had left it, so that two streams of traffic had made two used tracks; that on the eastern (the Opunake) side showing more use than the other. Billing, the defendant, had probably described .the junction more correctly when he had said: “The used part of the Ahipaipa Road goes out in the form of a bell or funnel. There, are two defined lines of traffic causing a triangular patch of sand to accumulate between' those lines. There is nothing to prevent the use of the sandy triangle, for it is simply sand over tar-seal.” “The plaintiff, who was a stranger to the district, was travelling from Opunake towards Hawera on the main road,” the magistrate said, “The defendant was travelling' down the Ahipaipa Road in a southerly direction, intending to go towards Opunake. The defendant’s story is that lie was travelling about 10 miles an hour, had looked first to the right and then to the left for about three seconds, but had not sounded his horn. His boy warned him of the approach of the plaintiff’s car and he looked to the right and saw plaintiff's car about a chain from the point of impact. • “He said he applied his brakes, but no brake marks were found. He said the plaintiff was on his incorrect side of the main road and travelling at an excessive speed. In that point I think he is wrong. I think the plaintiff was not on his incorrect side and was travelling about the speed he gave—2o miles an hour—and was slowing as the collision became imminent. The cars continued on their courses, the plaintiff pulling to the right to minimise the' blow and the collision occurred on the tar-seal of the main road. “The defendant placed the point of impact on the southern side of the main road. He said that when he looked to the left he was about a chain from the point of impact. ' It follows that in three seconds, at 10 miles an hour, he travelled 45 feet, and was at a point about five feet on the tar-seal of the main road when he first saw the traffic on the right. He said his course was on the left-hand side of the right-hand track of the junction. He emerged from the Ahipaipa Road about 10 feet on the incorrect .side of the centre of that road. There was some conflict of evidence as to whether he was on .the right or the left side of the right-hand track of the junction, but, taking his own account, it is clear he emerged on the incorrect side of the Ahapaipa Road. On his own showing he was negligent in emerging from a side road on the incorrect side, with insufficient look-out and without regard to traffic coming from his right, |

and could have been seen if his look-out had been vigilant.” In concluding the magistrate said it remained-to be considered whether the plaintiff had been guilty of contributory negligence. He did not think so. He thought the plaintiff was put into such a position of difficulty by the defendant’s negligent emergence on the road that, if to,save himself he turned to the right instead of to tli,e left, or. otherwise did not do the best thing in the circumstances, that should not be imputed to him as neglect'of duty.