CARS COLLIDE.

Waipa Post, Volume XIX, Issue 1075, 9 April 1921, Page 4

CARS COLLIDE.

TWO WRECKS AND TWO BILLS.

LITIGATION FOLLOWS,

The rule of the road figured as a salient feature in a case fought in the Te Awamutu Magistrate's Court on Thursday, when Mr Young, S.M., was asked by each party to a motor collision; to saddle the other party with the ' bill for damages. The parties were Dalgety and Co. (represented by Mr Lily, of Auckland), and Tamaki, a farmer of the Te Awamutu district (Mr J. Oliphant). Plaintiff asked the Court for judgment against Tamaki for £157 6s, whilst the latter counterclaimed for £166 15s lOd. The collision occurred some time ago a short distance out in the Te Awamutu suburbs, on the Hamilton Road, where it appears that the crash was due to Dalgety's driver adhering to his rule to pass on the proper side, while the other relied on his hand signal and the duty to steer anywhither in a sudden crisis.

The Court inspected 'the scene of the occurrence, and heard many witnesses in the attempt to find on which side the debit balance of responsibility lay. The witnesses included H. H. Shaw*, motor garage proprietor, of Hamilton; Arthur Stone, of Dalgety and Co.; H. Arthur iStone, driver of a motor car owned by Messrs Dalgety and Co.; H. P. Blackie, motor .engineer, of Hamilton; John Sterritt, owner of a Nash car, Te Awamutu; Wenzl iSchollum, land agent, of Auckland (evidence taken in Auckland); John Oliver, and John Woolston, farmers, of Te Awamutu.

In counsel's address Mr Oliphant said the fatal blunder was Stone's ignoring Tamaki's signal that he was keeping to the right, risking everything on the chance of Tamaki changing his mind in the few seconds intervening. It had ;been held that a man was justified in taking his wrong side in emergency to avoid a collision.

Mr Lily, on the other hand, relied on the evidence of Tamaki that Stone had just started to his left side when first sighted, and also on the statutory duty of a driver on approaching a bend to give the right of way to any car that might be approaching.

driver should not deviate from 'that rule except when adherence to it would clearly cause an accident. The law did not exonerate a driver who broke the rule of the road if he could safely have followed it, or who was driving at such a speed as made him unable to pull up in a safe distance. Decision was reserved.

In discussing with counsel the probable date of his judgment, His Worship remarked: "Supposing, for example, that I decided that both parties were to Mame; I should simply order each party to pay its own costs, and there would be not the same need for the parties to 'be represented at the reading of the judgment."