NEGLIGENT MOTORISTS

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 72, Issue 235, 3 October 1929, Page 11

NEGLIGENT MOTORISTS

COLLISION AT INTERSECTION CLAIM FOB DAMAGES DISMISSED Judgment was given by Mr J. H. Salmon, S.M., at the Magistrate’s Court on Tuesday in respect of a claim and counterclaim arising out of a collision between two motor cars which took place on the evening of May 4 last at the intersection of Vic toria Avenue and Liverpool Street. The plaintiff, W„ Jackson (Mr Dickson) sought to recover £4B 3s 8d damages from Neville Allen (Mr A. A. Barton) who, in turn, counterclaimed for £5O 13s. The plaintiff was driving his car up the Avenue keeping out a considerable distance from the kerb, his own evi dence w r as that he was 15 feet from • the kerb. The plaintiff’s evidence and that of a friend in the car with him had been so seriously impugned by independent witnesses, said his Wor ship, that he disregarded the plaintiff’s own'version as to speed and' positions. The defendant estimated the plaintiff’s speed at 40 to 5 miles an hour. This possibly exagerated the speed but, as an estimate, and looking at the whole of the circumstances, it was to be preferred to plaintiff’s own statemjent that he was proceeding at 15 miles an hour, that, on seeing the defendant’s car, he applied his footbrake and slowed down to 12 miles, and that he was practically stationary at the time of the impact. The impact was so severe that defendant’s car, which was struck on the right rear wheel was swung almost completely round so as to come to rest in a position practically facing that in which it had been proceeding. The plaintiff had only one headlight burning. According to a motor engineer his brakes were found to be 75 per cent ineffective.

The defendant was driving his car down Liverpool Street near tho centre but slightly to the left of it at a speed, he admitted, of 15 to 18 miles an hour. On looking down tlio Avenue to his right he saw one light coming along well down the Avenue. He thought, he said, that it was a motor cyclo and that he would have time to cross over. Ho discovered, when about in a line witfc the edge of the kerb, that it was a motor car and accelerated, but was struck by the plaintiff’s dumb irons.

Counsel for the plaintiff relied strongly upon the right-hand rule. The question whether he had the right to proceed when a vehicle was approaching an intersection from his right rested upon the judgment of, the driver. In tho present case, the defendant underestimated the speed at which the plaintiff, with his inadequately-lighted vehicle, was approaching. His Worship agreed with plaintiff’s counsel that the defendant was wrong in proceeding. Re also found that the plaintiff was driving negligently. He was driving at an excessive speed approaching the corner, he was proceeding with only one headlight and his brakes were 75 per cent ineffective. The only difficulty which had presented itself was, since both parties were negligent, who had the last opportunity to avoid the accident. Looking at the whole of the circumstances he was satisfied, since there had been contributory negligence on both sides, that neither party was entitled to recover, and both claim and counterclaim must fail.