DRIVER’S RESPONSIBILITY

Waipa Post, Volume 32, Issue 1927, 28 October 1926, Page 5

DRIVER’S RESPONSIBILITY

COLLISION ON TE KUITI ROAD.

COURT ACTION AT OTOROHANGA. (Own Correspondent). Mr C. R. ’Orr-Walkielr, StM., was called upon at Wedn(esd.ay’s sitting of the .Magistrate’s 'Court at Otoirohanga to delfermrine the measure of .responsibility folr a miojtor car accident on C.epitember 24th. IH.. Maxwell was charged with negligent driving on the Te 'KuSti road on that date.

IH. Clevedon, 'Government official, gave evidence of having left Otorohanga at about 7 p.m. When proceeding up a vary slteep grade about 11 miles out hie ndticed! lights approaching. Just before witness 'came to a bend <lei|:-,ndanlt came on his wrong side and colliding with him damaged witness’ car expensively. 'Had seen defendant approaching about 400 yard® away. Could not guage Maxwell’s speed. 'Witness’ lights werfsi going all right, though after /the collision one was dpt of seirviicie.. There were 10ft. between his car and the hank on the right. Maxwell spoke to him and be (witness) asked him whalt he was going to djo about it. Had asked Maxwell his name and he (Maxwell) had driven him to thei police station. His car was an Overland. Had found the portion of a Ford car, produced, on the road after the accident. Had also found tlfa spokes of his car on the •road. If was falirly dark on the night in question. By Mr 'Patterson: Thought his lights would shine from 16t|t, to 20fft. ahead of the car. Was well over on his correct side when going up 'the hill. Evidence was also given by Agnes Hyde, who sai'di she thought that judging by th}s reflection both Clevedon’s ligh't® were bujrning. This car was behind and s he could net say for certain that both lights were burning. 'Constable 'Fry gave .evidence and Stated that 'Clevedon’s car had apparently been travelling on fits correct side of the road. He could noit -trace Maxwell’s (tracks. ' Clevedton s left-hand light was not burning when witnjs'ss got Ito the spot.. Mr Phillips, ;fo|r th)a defendant, said he would call evidence itio. prove that Clevedon’/'s lights were not 'burning satisfactorily. Clevedon had been able to see Maxwell’s lights at a distance but Maxwell could not sieie. his. The affair was a pure acciden]t. (Herbert Maxwell, tlhe defendant, examined by Mr 'Paltterson, stated that he was going from 10 Ito 12 miles an hour when he came, ito tbe. corner in qluejstion. He was on hlis colrrect side. The ..first walrning after rounding the bend was one small light. He felt an impact and ’drew up in the watertabte. Cle'vedon asked him whafc lie was doing and said he must report the accident. 'Witness drove him to the polios station and then took Constable Fry out to view the scene of the accident and ithe condjtion of 'Clevedon’s lights. 'Cross-examined: Thought Clevedon had) at least 3ft. of safety margin at the scene of the accident. Had not bothered about taking any measurements. (Had ntever declined to give Clevedon his name. Would saw that the witness |Hlyde wa. s wrong when Chavs aid thajt both 'Clerk'd on’s lights were going. When.he saw the light on rounding the bend hie; took it for that of a bicycle. Stanley 'Wheeler, motor mechanic, was called and stated he/ had examined! the llightte on this. 'Overland car alt. the requtesjt of Mr Maxwell. This was |t,he day after the accident. He found the left light out of commission altogether, df a battery was flat, or run down, the light would be vteiry dim. 'The battery was absolutely flab w.lileln be .saw it and he was surprised to hear that, it had been in continual use since the date of this, accident. 'Thomas O'Rourke., ficlreman mechanic, was called and stated he had examined the lighting system of Clevedon’s car. He found| i:.he Haft hand wire broken alt tlhe terminal. He Thought Ithe w?ilei bad been 'broken some time. The lielf't hand battery was qfuite out of commission. Had pass'sd the car on the night of 'the accident and noticed Ithalt there was a half power light in It,he right lamp. . His, Worship solid he aedepted the statement of tlhe plaintiff that ion seeing a bright light approaching he had drawn over to his right side. The 'defendant contended that when he came round/ Ithe b'ein'd he only saw onla small light which he thought was that of a. bicycle. The expert evidence regarding tlie lamps was such that a severe blow might deletisiriously affect the light. He could only come to the conclusion jt.hat there was negligence on the paiit of the defendant. It was not however a casle of .serious aspect. He wicluM be convicted and fined £3 and costs.