SMASH ON ONE=CAR BRIDGE

Taranaki Daily News, 28 August 1930, Page 16

SMASH ON ONE=CAR BRIDGE

NEGLIGENT DRIVING PROVED POWER BOARD GIVEN DAMAGES. FAILURE OF THE COUNTERCLAIM. Damage.! amounting to £136 17s. were awarded the Taranaki Power Board in a judgment given by Mr. Justice Ostler against John Somerton, baker. New Plymouth, in the Supreme Court yesterday, Costs and disbursements according to scale were allowed against Somerton. The case arose out of a collision on May 15 at a one-car bridge between a car driven by Somerton and a truck, belonging to the board, driven by Leonard Jardine. The board claimed £l6l Bs. 6d. damages from Somerton, and Somerton counterclaimed for £3Ol special damages and £2O general damages. Mr. J. L. Weir represented the board and Mr. L. Al. Moss appeared for Somerton. The action for damages arose from a collision which took place on the main road at the Manganui bridge near Mid-, hirst, said Mr. Weir. ' The accident occurred at 8 o’clock in the- morning. Somerton- was driving south and Jardine north. Accompanying Jardine in the truck were’two other employees of the board, Hickey and Betteridge, but unfortunately Betteridge had since been electrocuted. The board claimed, said Air. Weir, that the collision was caused through the. negligent and reckless driving of Somerton. The board held that Somerton had been, driving at -an excessive speed, approaching a one-car bridge, that lie had. failed to keep a proper look-out, that he was driving on the wrong side of the road, and that he had.- failed to give way-to the board’s truck, which had entered the bridge before Somerton's car reached it. The bridge was 81 feet long, there was a clear view from either side, and there were notices on each side of the bridge, showing it was a one-car bridge. Jardine had come towards the bridge at 30 miles an hour-and when half-way across saw Somerton coming at a. fast speed on his 'wrong side of the road. Jardine’s truck was practically at a standstill at the northern end of,the bridge at the time of. the collision. The impact was very severe and the truck was smashed in like a concertina. As a result of the collision repairs had cost the. board £ll4. ON WRONG SIDE OF ROAD. Evidence would, be brought to show that the tracks of Somerton's car proved that he was on his wrong side of the road approaching a bridge for a distance of 35 yards. It was a well-recognised rule that the motorist first on the bridge had the right-of-way. Although the bridge was termed a one-car bridge, there was room for two cars to pass on it if reasonable care were taken. A description of the collision was given by Leonard H. Jardine, an officer of the board. He had seen Somerton’s car approaching, and he noticed that it overtook another car. Somerton’s car was coming at a terrific .speed. Jardine’s car had been badly smashed, a bone in his nose was broken and he had other injuries. His injuries had kept him from work for three weeks. He first saw the other car when he was six chains from the bridge. It was then 20 chains away from the bridge. When he was a chain south of the bridge he saw Somerton’s car five chains north of the bridge. He denied that his car and Somerton’s were equidistant from the bridge. From tile time lie saw the car till he was half-way across the bridge he had not the slightest fear of any trouble. Corroborative evidence was given by Arthur J. W. Hickey, a passenger in the board's truck.

Another employee of the boa,rd, F. A. Newton, who had been in a lorry following about half a mile behind, the board’s truck, described the position of the cars after the accident. The cars had locked practically head-on. Jardine’s car was jammed right over on its correct side of the bridge. Somerton’s car was on the wrong side of the bridge with .the rear wheels slewed diagonally. He had stepped out Somerton’s skidmarks, which came to 39 yards. The ■marks showed Somerton was on the wrong side of the road, he having cut the bend. Just before the impact Somerton seemed to have swerved, out and then back. Jardine’s skidmarks were 14 yards long. They showed he was travelling as far as he could go on his right side. Service cars and. big lorries had passed after the accident with Jardine’s car on the bridge as it was. Similar evidence was given by William N. Hawkins. The skid marks of Somerton’s car had been preserved by placing pieces of a broken,.bumper across them. The tracks made by Jardine’s skid marks were preserved by directing traffic to the right-hand. side. The collision must have been very violent, said Harry Bishop, garage proprietor, Stratford. There must have been speed somewhere. . The board’s claims for depreciation and loss of use of the truck were very reasonable. Constable Shields said, he had been called to the scene of the collision and had examined the skid marks. Somerton’s skid marks extended 35 yards well on the wrong side of the road. The marks began a foot away from the wrong side of the bitumen and the farthest they were away was shortly before the impact, when they were 2ft. Gin. from the wrong side. Jardine’s skid marks were definite for 22 feet, and on the correct side of the bridge. The road that morning was wet, but not very slippery. His client was at a disadvantage in this case, said Mr. Aloss, in having to appear as the defendant, which was due to his having to give a month’s notice of claim to the board as a local body. On the board’s own case as presented, he submitted that there was a clear case of contributory negligence. He mentioned- the “last opportunity” of avoiding the accident. As the case stood at present, the board admitted that Jardine knowingly approached the one-car bridge at 30 miles an hour with good, visibility. Jardine had good, brakes and full control of the situation, but his own evidence convicted him of taking an undue risk. Near the entrance to the bridge Jardine had said he was one chain from the bridge and Somerton five chains from the other end of the bridge. Jardine had to travel that chain and another 80 feet, the width of the bridge, to get across without a collision. From the skidmarks it was clear that Jardine’s braking, for only 22 feet, had been a last resort. The fact was he had “given it a go" to cross and failed. Somerton’s marks, on the other hand, showed he had braked for -■

J As a matter of fact, evidence would J be brought to show that the cars had been equidistant from the bridge. If Somerton had followed Jardine’s example, that is, had not braked, a fright- ’ ful accident might have followed. Any braking done by Jardine had been done too late. "THOUGHT IT WAS HIS BRIDGE.” John Somerton, baker, New Plymouth, said, he had been driving for 12 years • without an accident. The car was only five months old and had cost £735. There were three women in the back of the car and another passenger named ■ Johnston. ’ - I "When he saw the.other car Somerton ■ thought it was his bridge, as he was the nearer. Before he came to the site ' he was doing about 35 miles an hour. 5 He saw the other car when he was • about at the “one-car” sign. When he r saw the other car coming very fast he ■ applied his brakes, which did not seem ■ to work very well on the greasy road. L His car showed up and at the mouth of the bridge it was just moving. His Honour: If your car was only just moving, why did you not steer it into 1 the gap ? Somerton: Yes, but the other car was ■ on top of me. It surprised him to hear that Jardine ■ had applied his brakes at all. ■To Air. Weir: He was going to the ■ races at Wanganui that day. He had a horse running in a race there, but was not anxious to arrive before the races began. When he saw. Jardine, he himself was five and a half chains from the bridge and Jardine was six-chains from the bridge. Was it not a fact, said Air. Weir, that one of the women in his car had drawn his attention to Jardine’s car and he (Somerton) had Said. “I’ll beat him to it?” .-./‘No, absolutely,” said Somerton. The passenger in the front seat of 'Somerton’s car, Arthur W. Johnston, Waitara, said that on first seeing Jardine’s car he thought Somerton’s car would reach the bridge first. He had no sense of danger until they were practically on the bridge. Similar evidence was given by backseat passengers in Somerton's car, Eva Thorpe and Agnes Olliver. A motor expert, Walter L. Rockstrow, New Plymouth, said he had examined the board’s truck. Its brakes were in good order and it should be able at 30 miles an hour to pull up in 45 feet. Evidence as to depreciation was given by Air. T. G. Thomson. In closing his case, Air. Aloss submitted that the most that could be said for plaintiff was no better than that given for the defendant. He held that the case must stand or fall by the test of Somerton's speed. Was it likely that all the passengers in Somerton’s car would have felt secure if he had been going to the bridge at a reckless speed? Somerton had applied his brakes; Jardine had sailed over without slackening speed at all. Jardine’s neglect to pull up earl' r was the effective cause of the collision. Both men had honestly thought it their bridge, and both had made a mistake. The point rvas that Somerton had tried to correct his mistake by

braking 110 feet from the bridge and Jardine had braked only 22 feet on the bridge. If Jardine had. braked when Somerton braked there would have been no collision. Conversely, if Somerton had done as Jardine had done and not braked until the last moment there would probably have been a fatality. It was not sufficient to say that Jardine had the right to the bridge, because the collision took place at the north end. If Somerton had done as Jardine did and not braked, the collision would have taken place in the middle of the bridge. NO CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE. It had seemed to him from counsel’s opening, said his' Honour, that counsel had almost come to the view' himself that it would be very difficult to establish the defendant as not guilty of negligence and had consequently bent his strength to show contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff. His Honour accepted the evidence given by Jardine as substantially correct because it was borne out by the fact that the collision took place when he had travelled the whole length of the bridge. It was possible that Jardine had been somewhat astray in his estimates, and that he was really two chains away from the bridge and Somerton perhaps only four. Byt even if Somerton was only four or three chains away Jardine had the prior right to the bridge.

Counsel had contended that Jardine had been negligent in going on to the bridge. He agreed that if Jardine had waited there would probably have been no accident, but he did not agree that in going on Jardine had not shown reasonable care. Jardine was.entitled to assume that Somerton was going to exercise reasonable care.’ Jardine had not realised until he entered the bridge that Somerton was going to act negligently. The ground on which contributorynegligence was urged was that Jardine did not apply his brakes soon enough. But Jardine had said he did not realise there was any danger until he was halfway across the bridge. Then he Xlid the only thing he could do and braked. Further, the measurements of his brake marks had not been taken by the constable until an hour after the accident and it was probable that the distance was nearly 142 feet that 122 feet. Thus the only two grounds for contributory negligence failed. What, then, was the cause of the accident? It was plainly due to negligence on the part of Somerton. The length of his skid marks, 110 feet, showed that he had obviously been driving at an excessive. speed. If he could not pull up in that distance he was going at more than '35 miles an hour. He eitffi ■ failed to keep a proper look-out, or else rade.aa attempt to beat Jardine for the bridge, saw that he would not, and tried then to stop his car.