CLAIMS FOR MOTOR DAMAGE

Taranaki Daily News, 2 May 1930, Page 12

CLAIMS FOR MOTOR DAMAGE

COLLISION AT INTERSECTION.

ACCIDENT LAST DECEMBER.

A motor-car collision at the corner of Morley and St. Aubyn Streets on December 15 was the result of cross claims in the Magistrate’s Court at New Plymouth yesterday. Ruth’ W. Moody and Eliza A. Moody claimed £35 I2s 6d damages from Mary A. L. Fookes, owner of the other car, who counterclaimed for £5B. After some evidence for the defence jiad been heard the case was adjourned till Monday. A car driven by Thomas Clifford Fookes was , proceeding‘along St. Aubyn Street in a westerly direction, while Ruth Moody was driving a three-seater car, fully loaded, along Morley Street in a northerly direction. The collision occurred at the corner. Mr. A. A. Bennett recalled that in the Police Court proceedings the charge of a breach of the right-hand rule against Miss Moody was dismissed, while Fookes was convicted of driving at a speed dangerous to the public; The evidence on the claim, proceeded counsel, would be that Miss Moody drove slowly up the Morley Street hill towards the sea. Her car almost stopped near the summit. She took every reasonable and proper precaution at the intersection. She saw no car within 70 or 80 yards of. the corner. She proceeded to make her turn and was in the middle of the tram rails when she heard a motor horn. Then she saw Fookes coming on at a tremendous speed, Fookes, himself, having sa,id in the Police Court that he was doing between 35 and 40 miles an hour.

During cross-examination by Mr. Brokenshire Miss Moody said she swerved to her right in an endeavour to avoid the collision. At the shine time Fookes swerved to the right. She maintained Fookes’ car hit hers, but if that were true she could not account for Fookes’ car turning over on its side. Corroborative evidence was given by G. F. Gayton, who was in the front seat with Miss Moody. Mr. Brokenshire submitted that the mere fact that Miss Moody wag acquitted in the police proceedings did not affect this case. His client did not have the opportunity of cross-examining her, and it was within her rights to bring further evidence. The magistrate remarked that while a person might be convicted of a breach, that conviction did not necessarily affect civil proceedings, as the breach concerned might not have been the negligence causing the accident. Mr. Brokenshire said the defence alleged Miss Moody was negligent, and that this was the actual and only cause of the accident. ‘"She was negligent both at common law and under the regulations. It was contended that she failed to observe the off-side rule. On the other hand it was maintained that Fookes was not negligent and that even if he were his negligence was not th® cause of the accident.

Mrs. Vita Cornwall, who lives on th® south-western corner of the intersection, said she saw the collision. The cars reached the intersection almost simultaneously. She could not judge Miss Moody’s speed, but would say it was faster than was usual when approaching the intersection from that direction. Fookes’ speed was about normal. Miss Moody, who was travelling too fast to pull up, did not turn in the centre but to the side of the road. Fookes swerv to the right in an endeavour to avoid a collision, but his car was hit in the rear. She considered there was no room for Fookes to go behind the other car. His only course was to go to the right. . ; •' To Mr. Bennett: From her position at the window she would be able to see Fookes’ car travel further than she could see Miss Moody’s. Fookes was going faster than Miss Moody.