ELEVEN TO ONE VERDICT

Taranaki Daily News, 23 November 1932, Page 5

ELEVEN TO ONE VERDICT

JURY FINDS FOR DEFENDANT CLAIM FOR COLLISION DAMAGES. ACCIDENT IN SOUTH TARANAKI. By a majority of 11 to one the jury last night returned a verdict in favour of the defendant, Walter Hamilton, against whom George A. Richards had commenced an action for damages in the Supreme Court at New Plymouth on Monday. Richards claimed £750 general and £573 3s special damages arising out of injuries received when his motorcycle collided with Hamilton’s lorry at the intersection of the Waihi and Glover Roads, Hawera, in November, 1930. Mr. Justice Reed entered judgment for Hamilton, with costs according to scale, £7 7s for an extra day of trial and witnesses’ expenses and disbursements to be fixed by the registrar. Issues were submitted to the jury, which retired at 3.15 pan. Shortly before six o’clock the jurymen returned with the announcement that there was no prospect of complete agreement. They were informed by His Honour that after three hours they might bring in a three-fourths majority verdict. The jury finally returned at 7.40 p.m. with an eleven-twelfths decision. Called yesterday morning by Mr. R. H. Quilliam on behalf of the defence, Cecil James Walden, salesman, Hawera, said he lived close to the scene of the accident, on Glover Road. He was driving from Hawera to his home when the collision occurred. Richards had passed him about 300 yards from the comer. Witness saw the lorry in the distance, travelling on. the crown of the road. As it approached the comer it pulled further over to the left. Both vehicles were travelling at about 10 or 12 miles per hour. Witness did not see Richaids signal his intention to turn; witness was not concentrating on the matter, so he could not say for certain that there was no signal. The collision occurred 10 or 11 feet from the electric pole. The lorry had reached a little more than half-way over the intersection when the impact took place. Richards had turned in front of the lorry. Cross-examined by Mr. A. K. North, witness said that as far as he could remember Pettitt was there. He saw a man whom he afterwards found to be Pettitt, walking about looking for marks on the road. He had no reason to doubt that Pettitt was there. He did not notice whether the lorry made a lastminute swerve in an.endeavour to avoid the impact. "Witness admitted that Richards, being nearer the comer, was in a better position to judge whether he should make the turn than witness was. He did not necessarily condemn Richards for making the turn when he did; witness was some distance back from the comer. To Mr. Quilliam: If witness had been Richards he would have gone round the back of the lorry; that was his judgment of the facts as he saw them from a distance. To His Honour: It must have been obvious to anyone travelling along Glover Road from Hawera that the lorry was not turning into Waihi Road north or south, but was going straight ahead along Glover Road. EVIDENCE OF CONST/JBLE. Constable F. N. Lemm, Hawera, said the accident occurred on November 22, 1930. He and Sergeant McGregor went to the scene about 12.20 p.m. There was a number of persons present, including Pettitt. He might have seen Purcell, though he did not know him by sight Pettitt did not point anything out to witness; he did not see Pettitt pointing anything out to anyone else. The crankcase of the cycle was considerably damaged and a piece lay on the road at the place he believed to be the point of impact. The left front mudguard of the lorry was slightly dented and the left front axle was bent. Cross-examined by Mr. G. J. Bayley, the constable admitted the rain would tend to obliterate marks on the road. It was possible the point of impact was in another part of the intersection and that the lorry had lifted the motorcycle and pushed it to where it came to rest. Sergeant McGregor, New Plymouth, who was relieving at Hawera at the time, also described the accident, and confirmed the opinion of Constable Lemm concerning the point of impact. Clement le Campion, labourer and horse-trainer living at the corner of the Waihi and Glover Roads, said he assisted to take Richards to the hospital. Afterwards he returned and removed the parts of the cycle on to his property. He had known Hamilton casually' a good while, but not to speak to until four years ago when he came to witness’ place to see a horse. Mr. Bayley: Have you discussed with Hamilton since last night the question of the length of your acquaintance?— No. Counsel: You know your wife said you knew Hamilton 15 years?—That is cor-' rect. I have known Hamilton on the road for many years though not to speak to. Witness denied that he was unfriendly towards Richards or considered he should stick to his own job and not train horses. Richards was entitled to train horses if he wanted to. John Sleeman Barkla, farmer, Whakamara, said he spoke to Richards in the hospital, but denied suggesting he and Hamilton should “get their heads together.” Witness said he had gone to the hospital to see his father-in-law. He had mentioned to Richards that he was the father of the boy in the lorry. To Mr. North: He would deny that Jones had overheard him pass the alleged remark. He knew that most motorists were insured. ' THE ALLEGED REMARK. Called by the defence in rebuttal, Sydney M. Jones, factory manager, Sutherland Road, Manaia, said he visited Richards several times in hospital. He recalled having seen Barkla, the last witness, at Richards’ bedside. As witness approached the bedside Barkla said, “You and Hamilton should get your heads .together and get the insurance.” Richards shook his head and said, I would not have that on.” Witness was a few feet away at the time. To Mr. Quilliam: He knew Richards, but not very well. He did not go to Richards’ place once a week. He sometimes went there to see The Tiger, but did not have an interest in that horse. Richards had trained a trotter for him years ago. He was not related to Richards. He had been surprised when he heard Barkla make the remark; he would not say he was shocked. Albert E. Hovind, Hawera, said he was once at the le Campion’s place with Richards to look at the motor-cycle damaged in the accident. He recalled the conversation between Mrs. le Campion and Richards. He denied that Richards had said “it would not have hurt Hamilton to say he was to blame as he was injured.” ' To Mr. Quilliam: Witness was m hospital with Richards. He, too, had been injured in a motor-cycle accident and had received damages. Mr. Quilliam: So you were able to put hjjn up to all the tricks of the trade? Mr. North: I object' to that mos improper suggestion. danisd ihai 4ft had talked.

about insurance and the accident a great 1 deal with Richards. Richards told him 1 the previous night over the telephone i what had been alleged by Mrs. le Campion, and witness had agreed it was : untrue. Summing up, His Honour said the case revealed an extraordinary position. In broad daylight, with perfect visibility, "two motor vehicles collided. That fact, he suggested, showed it was not an inevitable accident; that there was negligence somewhere, either by both parties or by one of them.. His Honour then proceeded to explain the regulations for traffic at such an intersection. He did not think the right-hand rule applied in this case.. When the plaintiff was travelling up Glover Road the defendant was travelling down the same road, so there was no particular . duty cast on defendant other than to exercise the ordinary care required at an intersection. The question was whether the defendant before getting on to the intersection had put himself in the right by placing himself on the left side of the road and exercising reasonable care. It was for the jury to decide if the plaintiff had given the signal that he intended to turn, or had turned without giving the signal. If he began to fum before reaching the intersection he would have committed a breach by . cutting the corner. His Honour then asked the jury to answer several issues. The jury retired at 3.15 p.m. and returned at 7.40 with the following answers:— . (1) Was the defendant negligent in (a) travelling on the wrong side of the road?—No. (b) Not keeping a proper look-out?— No. (c) Failing to give way to plaintiff?— N (d) Failing to have his lorry under proper control? —No. (e) Failing to stop before the intersection?—No. . (f) Failing to observe the plamtins signal of his intention to turn into Waihi Road and failing to perform his obligation to give way to plaintiff?—No. His Honour intimated that in view of the answers up to that point it was not necessary for answers to be given to the fol ring remaining questions:— (2) Was the plaintiff negligent in—(a) Not giving proper warning of his intention to turn to the right contrary to the provisions of the regulations? (b) Failing to maintain his position to the left of the centre line of Glover Road until he had passed the centre line of the Waihi Road contrary to the regulations? (c) Making a turn to the right? (d) Failing to give way to the defendant? (e) Not keeping a proper look-out? (f) Failing to have his motor-cycle under proper control?

gent, could each up to the last moment have avoided the accident by the exercise of ordinary care? (4) If not, could either of them, and if so, which? (5) Assess the damages irrespective of the answers given above.