CLAIM FOR DAMAGES.

Waikato Times, Volume 102, Issue 17169, 3 August 1927, Page 8

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES.

SEQUEL TO COLLISION.

KOTOR CAR AND MOTOR CYCLE.

Arising out of a car and motor cycle collision at the Clarence Street intersection, J. C. Coombridge, a motor mechanic, of- Hamilton, in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday, before Mr Wyvern Wilson, S.M., sought damages from Dr. Cecil Brewis.

Constable R. H. Lloyd stated that he attended the scene of the accident. He found the doctor’s car on the lefthand side of the road. He was told that the car had been shifted. There was a pool of water where the collision had occurred, and from;this he concluded that the doctor’s car was on its wrong side. The measurement of the pool of water to the edge of the bitumen was 3ft, and from the opposite edge 14ft. He took the general line of the bitumen in making his measurements. There was a dent in the radiator, and he thought that this and other damage to the front of.the car were compatible with a head-on collision.

On being cross-examined hv Mr McMullin, he said that he thought that it would have been quite safe to have left the car in its original position. R. W. Picard, shop assistant, stated that as he was going to bed he heard a crash outside and went out to the scene of the accident. He thought that the car was on its incorrect side of the road.

Case for the Defence. In opening the case for the defence Mr McMullin stated that as Coombridge was approaching his client, seeing him coming by the reflection of the headlight, would naturally conclude that if Coombridge was on his wrong side he intended to go down Clarence Street. It was obvious that the car had been going slowly. His client, in moving the car. merely did the obvious thing in shifting it from a busy intersection. The point of impact was 21ft from the right-hand side of the bitumen and ioft from the left-hand side. There was no question of speeding. Plaintiff admitted that he saw the lights of the doctor’s car approaching and knew that he must meet the car on the intersection.

Dr. Brewis stated that he saw the cyclist approach him in the middle of the road. There was plenty of room for the cyclist to pass. He was certain that plaintiff swerved to his wrong side. At the moment of impact he considered that he was on his correct side of the road. He alighted from his car and examined the boy, and then did what he considered the only obvious thing to do in shifting his car from a busy intersection. He agreed that the point of impact was represented by the pool of water. He dimmed his lights and applied his. brakes on colliding with the cyclist. E. G. Scrimshaw stated that he appeared on the scene almo.st instantly. The doctor went' over to the boy and asked him if there was anything he could do. He heard Coombridge ask the doctor who was to pay for the damage; also, later, that it was a good thing they were travelling at a slow pace. He also recalled plaintiff saying that he swerved to his right to save himself from crashing into the pole. In summing up, His Worship said that it was clear to him that both cars were travelling on the middle of the road. The case rested on the credibility of the plaintiff. He thought that he was shaken after the accident £ and did not now remember what he ' then said. The fact that he asked the defendant who was to pay the damages proved that he was not sure who was responsible.- He put down the cause of the accident to both parties travelling on their wrong side and plaintiff swerving to his wrong side. He would give judgment for defendant, with costs. On the advice of hi« client Mr McMullin withdrew* costs.