S.M. COURT

Waikato Independent, Volume XXII, Issue 2550, 25 May 1922, Page 5

S.M. COURT

SEQUEL TO COLLISION. DAVIS V. CLARK. An echo of a collision which occurred in Duke Street, Cambridge, on April lltli of last year, was heard and well ventilated at the S.M. Court, Cambridge, yesterday, before Mr F. W. Platts, S.M., when Chambers Davies claimed from George A. Clark the sum of £8 8/, value of suit of clothes, £3, doctor’s expenses, £3 3/6 for spectacles, 5/6 for chemist and £IOO general expenses, for damages resulting from t*e accident referred to. Mr E. G. Northcroft appeared for plaintiff and Mr A. H. Gascoigne for defendant.

Mr Northcroft, in opening the case, detailed the accident, which, he declared, had been caused by the gross negligence or lack of control of his car shown by defendant. The claim w r as not an extravagant one.

Before hearing the evidence, the Magistrate and counsel visited and inspected the scene qf the accident, Chamber Davis, plaintiff’, accountant' working for Mr Souter, deposed that on April lltli last year he was cycling from Mr Souter’s shop, on the south side of Duke Street. When he first saw Mr Clark’s car approaching him, the car was too close to the footpath to allow him to pass. Witness thought that the driver intended pulling up at the Independent Office. Glancing round, and seeing that there was no one else near, witness turned slightly to the right to avoid the car, which moved out at the same time. The road was 42ft from kerb to kerb, and he was about 15ft from the side when the car struck him. After the accident Mr Clark took witness in a taxi to the chemist. He had been badly shaken by the accident, and his ankle was badly injured, the car evidently going over it. He was in bed for ten days, and for five weeks afterwards was motored about. He had also suffered from illness due to the accident. Witness said his clothes had been completely destroyed, and his spectacles lost. Mr Souter kindly paid his wages during the time he was away from work. He had not noticed any motors moving across the road to avoid the subsidence, due to repairs to the street by the borough workmen. Mr Clark seemed very sorry at the accident.

To Mr Gascoigne: If he had been cyling on a road I6ft wide, and a motorist had allowed him six feet that would have allowed him space to pass. On the day of the accident he was riding about five or six feet from the kerbing on his correct side. He first saw Mr Clark approaching when he was near McVeagh and Byrne’s and Mr Clark at that time was about Mr McKay’s. There was not sufficient space between the car and the kerbing to enable witness to pass. He was aware there were by-laws relating to motor traffic in the borough, and had observed the rules followed by motorists, but many did not observe these. He naturally thought Mr Clark was going to pull up at the Independent Office, as he was on that side of the road, and travelling slowly. He did not know Mr Clark’s intentions, but only surmised this. Witness stated he had good eyesight, with his spectacles, and cycled regularly to and from work. On the day in question he had crossed the depression near the Independent Office on his correct side. At the time of the accident he ■was cycling slowly, and the car was also travelling slowly. When he realised the car was so close to him it was impossible to avoid a collision. He was an experienced cyclist, and could say that a cycle was more easily manipulated than a motor. Mr Clark acted kindly after the accident. Clark’s car was approximately I4ft from the southern kerb at the time of the actual collision, he having turned iu a northerly direction just as the plaintiff had.

To Mr Northcroft: Had he known Mr Clark would sw T erve towards the centre of the road, he would certainly have kept to his correct side, but he had no alternative than to turn to liis right in an endeavour to ayoid a collisiou. To Mr Gascoigne: Mr Clark gave no signal as to whether he intended to stop. Harold Cranch, taxi-driver, stated that he was in the Masonic Hotel at the time of the accident, and came out immediately afterwards. He had motored over the depression on the street that day without any difficulty. He could sec the traces of the car’s progress. It had turned from about five or six feet of the southern kerbing towards the centre of the road, almost at rightangles. To Mr Gascoigne: Mr Clark had evidently done the only thing possible in an endeavour to prevent a collision under tho circumstances —he had applied the brakes. Passing over the depression would give the car a bit of a bump but would not hurt tho car.

D. S. Dow, fruiterer, deposed that he came out of his shop near by immediately after the accident, and saw marks on the road which indicated that the brakes had been applied to the ear

when on the south side of the road. The right wheel mark was about five or six feet from the kerbing. Afterwards the marks led towards the centre of the road. He knew of the depression on the road, and had gone over it frequently. It was worse on the northern side of the road than the south, but only caused a bump on going over it. The Defence. Mr Gascoigne pointed out that his client was.- f ollowing- the usual practice in crossing to the right side of the road to avoid the depression. Of course had there been much traffic at the time it would have been different, but there was no traffic. He had also left Davis at least 10ft space in which to pass on his proper side. George A. Clark, defendant, declared that on the day in question he was driving to Wilkinson’s garage in Duke street. There were three cars standing on the left side of the street, and to avoid these and so as to keep clear of possible traffic from the three sidelanes on the left of Duke street, he kept about the middle of the street. He was making toward the depression, Bn tfihe right or south side of the street When he saw Mr Davis approaching, about 70ft away. Witness was travelling at about eight to ten miles till hour, and Davis was also riding slowly. He gave no indication that he would stop ot the Independent Office. On passing the depression which was not so bad on the south as on the. north side, he moved across the road towards the left side. Davis had a clear 20ft of road in which to pass witness, but he dashed right across in the same direction as witness. He had been driving cars for eight years, and had never previously had an accident. He had repaired tho damaged cycle as he heard the owner was a boy who required it. His right wheel was never nearer than 10ft off the right hand kerbing. Mr Wilkinson and another had stepped it, in his presence. To Mr Northcroft: He had gone with Mr Crunch to take Davis to the chemish and might have been away a quarter of an hour. Davis’ cycle was the only traffic in the street at the time of the accident. Immediately after crossing tho depression he moved to the left, and saw Davis approaching, and at the actual time of the collision His 1 car was moving diagonally across about the centre of the street. He did not pay for cycle repairs because he admitted his liability for the accident. Another reason for his paying for same was because he wished to avoid the account standing over, and he had paid the chemist’s account for the same reason. It was spontaneous generosity, if counsel desired to call it such. Mr Davis was not capable of attending to these matters at the time. Arnold Wilkinson, motor garage proprietor, in business in Cambridge since 1889, deposed that immediately after the accident he traced the wheel marks of the car, and measured he distance from the kerbing. It was 104 ft at the nearest spot. He also traced the marks back, and saw that the car had travelled along about the centre of the road until about 20ft before the depression, when it had turned towards the south, and after crossing the dip had moved back to the road centre, almost in the form of a half-circle. It was the practice to avoid the depression, which was worse on the north side. He had passed over it many times himself, and caused a nasty bump, like hitting a brick. Apparently the car had travelled about 30ft after the depression before the collision. Mr Clark was a very careful driver.

To Mr Northcroft: He had known Mr Clark for some 20 years, had sold him two cars of recent years. Frederick Christian Schwass, farmer residing at Pulcerimu, stated ho was at Taylor’s shop, neaTby, when the accident occurred. He and Mr Wilkinson measured the distance between the wheel marks and the kerbing, and made it 10ft. bin. at- the nearest point. Witness corroborated Mr Wilkinson’s evidence as to the direction the ear had travelled. He had passed over the road himself that morning, and had crossed to the southern side to avoid the deep rut, which would give a car a good bump, and might cut the tyres. Counsel’s Addresses. Addressing the Bench, at considerable length, Mr Gascoigne said that plaintiff must prove negligence on the part of Mr Clark to succeed, and cited numerous cases to prove his contention. It must be taken into consideration that, there was no traffic on the street at the time, and consequently defendant was justified in crossing the road to avoid the bupip. The evidence proved that there was ample space for the plaintiff to proceed on his proper side of the road; moreover Davis must have seen the car moving towards the centre of the road after .crossing the dip had he been careful, and it was evident his error of judgment in looking back at a critical juncture was largely responsible for the accident. Thus if it were proved that, defendant had been negligent, he claimed plaint-ill had also, and quoted judgments to show that this must prevent plaintiff succeeding in liis claim.

Mr Nortlicfoft also spoke at consid-