OHAUPO ROAD COLLISION

Waipa Post, Volume 49, Issue 3506, 16 August 1934, Page 5

OHAUPO ROAD COLLISION

RESERVED JUDGMENT GIVEN.

PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM SUCCEEDS

The circumstances of a collision near Ohaupo on February 2nd, 1934, wherein one of the Te AwamutuHamilton buses operated by Hodgson’s Motors, Ltd., was damaged by a light truck belonging to Mr Comas, hide and skin dealer, of Frankton, were investigated by Mr F. H. Levien at the Te Awamutu Magistrate's Court a month ago, when decision was reserved. At the Court on Wednesday judgment was delivered in favour of plaintiffs for £22 0s 9d and costs. The Magistrate’s judgment was as follows:

This was a claim for £42 0s 9d special and general damages arising out of a collision on the main Te Awa-mutu-Hamilton highway on the afternoon of 2/2/34, between a bus, the property of the plaintiff, and a following van driven by a servant of the defendant. The evidence disclosed that the bus was in fair order and condition on the 2/2/34. Some miles from Te Awamutu on the main road to Hamilton, the bus had occasion to stop in order to set down a more or less regular passenger, Mrs Seymour and her child, at an accustomed stopping place as the bus ascends a hill. The bus was- gradually brought fo'a standstill upon application of the brakes, which caused the lighting up of a warning and red rear light. Neither the bus driver through his mirror, nor Mrs Seymour, who looked to the rear, were able to see the van approaching prior to the collision. As the bus stopped Mrs Seymour and her child gathered parcels and luggage from the floor and luggage rack and the child with her mother following was in the act of alighting from the bottom step of the bus when it was struck from behind by the defendant’s van. The left corner of the van hit the right rear corner of the bus, causing damage to both vehicles. There is ample corroboration of the convincing evidence given by the bus driver and Mrs Seymour. The bus was pulled up upon the extreme left of the road at the point of impact. The driver of the van admitted that he was following the bus, although all the evidence adduced by the plaintiff indicated that he must have approached" the rear of the bus at a fast speed. The van driver admits, however, that he noticed the bus slow up. He interpreted this as a preliminary step to the bus changing gear on the up grade. It is also admitted by the van driver that he saw the rear warning light of the bus go on when he was “eight to nine yards” distant. I disbelieved his “five to six yards” distance stated by him as an afterthought. He had then apparently come up too close to the back of the bus, and on swerving to the right in a last momentary endeavour to clear the bus he struck it as above described. The foot brake of the van operating on the rear wheels was defective in that the foot plate was broken off, and the application of the flat of the foot did not effectively actuate the brake. I have some doubt as to whether the defendant really saw and appreciated all that he has deposed to. - In my opinion the evidence discloses that the defendant driver was too close up to the bus under circumstances that would have indicated undue risk to a reasonably careful driver. The defective foot brake added a further element of risk to the position in which the defendant driver placed himself, and in which he continued to rernian. Under such circumstances he must be held to have been negligent. The defendant must pay for the resultant damages. Judgment for plaintiff is therefore for £22 0s 9d.