SERVICE CAR SMASH.

Waikato Times, Volume 108, Issue 18158, 24 October 1930, Page 8

SERVICE CAR SMASH.

PASSENGER’S CLAIM. % WAS THERE NEGLIGENCE ? EXCESSIVE SPEED ALLEGED. A claim for £507 for injuries received in a motor accident was brought in the Hamilton Supreme Court today, before His Honour Mr. Justice Smith. Plaintiff was George Charles Hammond, farmer, Cambridge, and defendant William Sherry, service car proprietor, Hamilton. Mr. E. Parry (Wellington') and with him Mr. E. McGregor (Morrinsville) appeared for plaintiff and Mr. A. H. Johnstone (Auckland) for defendant. Eight persons were involved in the accident, which occurred near Drury. In his statement of claim plaintiff set out that on the afternoon of January 3 last he "was proceeding from Auckland to Hamilton in a motor service car driven by defendant, when the car left the crashed into a telegraph pole. As a result of the collision defendant received a fracture of the left wrist and injuries to his ribs and spine. Plaintiff claimed that the accident arose out of defendant's negligence in driving at an excessive speed, failing to keep a proper lookout, failing to have his car in good and proper condition of repair, and toy carrying an excessive number of passengers. Plaintiff said he was incapacitated for four months. He claimed £llß for loss of wages, £l6 hospital expenses, £lB 10s for board while an out-patient, and £4 14s travelling expenses, together with £350 general damages. The defence was a'general denial and as an alternative that plaintiff’s injuries were caiised by ■an inevitable accident without any negligence or default on Lhe part of plaintiff.

Driven at Excessive speed. Mr. Parry said the position was not complicated in any way by the intervention of another car, tout plaintiff claimed that the accident was entirely due to the excessive speed at which the car was driven. The car left its final port of call in Auckland at 2.48 p.m. The accident occurred at 3.15 p.m. The point at which it occurred nvas where the bitumen meets the concrete at Drury. Thus the car had in half-an-hour travelled 21 miles. As the speed must necessarily* have been restricted in clearing the city, the speed after the tram lines were passed must have been very great indeed. All the passengers would say that the car was driven at a grossly - excessive speed. It skidded in a quantity of loose metal and travelled 88 yards, slewed, sideways and struck a telegraph pole. The pole became embedded in the car and the force of the impact was so great that it broke the electric wires on the pole-. The defence, counsel understood, was that one of the front tyres of the car burst, •causing the car to skid. Plaintiff had asked for the production of the tyre to enable it to toe examined by experts, tout up to the present time the tyre had not materialised. It was also worthy of comment that none of the witnesses heard any explosion as of a tyre having burst.

Mr. Parry went on to say that defendant had not a license to drive a service car, and the car also was not registered for the carrying of passengers. The car was carrying one more passenger than it would have been permitted to carry had it been licensed to carry passengers. This additional passenger was sitting in the front seat. Traffic Inspector Barrett said his attention was attracted by defendant’s speed on the afternoon in question, at Manurewa. There' were two other cars on the road at the’time. He estimated defendant’s speed at a minimum of 38 miles an hour. Thp’ road after leaving the concrete was covered with loose metal. The distance from where the driver lost control to the telegraph pole was 88 yards. There was a cambre on the road at this point. The right front tyre of the car AVas flat. The tyre was an old one. All the tyres were, in fact, well worn. The car was not licensed as a service car nor had defendant a li.cense to drive a service car.

plaintiff’s Evidence. In answer to Mr. Johnstone, witness said the road at the point of the accident was covered with loose metal and there was a bend on a downward grade, approaching the spot. In addition the road had a fe high crown and fell away on both sides.. Plaintiff, George Charles Hammond, said the car left Upper (Jueen Street shortly before 3 p.m. Defendant passed everything on the road, the car travelling too fast altogether for his liking. After leaving the concrete at Drury they came to a slight bend in the road, when the car suddenly swerved and went off the road down an incline and crashed into a telegraph pole some distance further along.

Cross-examined, plaintiff said the car did not skid at any time. Iris Marion Costello, a passenger in the car, said the vehicle left the People’s Palace at 2."48 p.m. The car travelled at a terrifying pace and her husband remarked to the driver upon the pace. They overlook other vehicles that came in sight and there were one or two narrow escapes from accidents. Just prior to the accident they came to a bend in the road and she felt as though the car was passing from beneath her. She felt something was going to happen. Th<3 next moment the car was descending the gradient at the side of the road. The driver seemed to be straining on the wheel to bring the vehicle hack to the road, but was unable to do so. At the time the car left the road it was travelling very fast.

Cross-examined, witness said that she and tier husband were in the front seat alongside the driver. Witness was rather crushed. Both she and her husband had claims pending against defendant. Kenneth Wilton Costello, company secretary of Wellington, also a passenger, said that once Grafton Bridge was passed they travelled at about 25 miles an hour until they cleared the tramlines at Newmarket. The speed was then increased to about 50 miles. They passed everything that came in sight, lie gave the driver as much elbow' room as possible. He heard no tyre burst. Witness observed to the driver that concrete could not be so slippery as bitumen, to be able to travel at the speed they were doing, lie estimated that they rounded the bend just prior to the accident, at about 50 miles an hour.

Case for Defence. Stephen Sullivan, electrician, Waihl,

also a passenger, said the car was scheduled to leave Auckland at 2 o'clock, but they did not get away until about 2,45. They travelled along the Great South Road at about 40 miles an hour on the concrete. The speed seemed to increase after the concrete was left, to between 45 and 50 miles an hour just prior to the accident happening. Witness was injured in the head and was rendered unconscious. ' •

Constable T. Holland, of Papakura, gave evidence of the nature of the road and of measurements taken.

In opening for the defence, Mr. Johnstone said the defence Was two-fold—-firstly a denial of negligence, and secondly, the injuries were caused by an inevitable accident. He pointed out that even new tyres burst under certain conditions and would skid were the road surface loose or greasy, without any negligence on the part of those in control of them. Plaintiff had produced no evidence of negligence. The burden of the proof of negligence was on plaintiff, who had failed to discharge that onus. It would be shown that the main cause of the accident was the bursting of the right front tyre. The collapse of the tyre caused the car to b££ome more or less unmanageable and to veer to the right. The car descended the declivity into a quagmire of slippery clay, into which the, wheels of the car sagged. The driver did everything possible to get his car out of the skid and the back of the car slewed round and the rear of the car struck a pole. Defendant was a licensed driver of many years’ standing, who had never previously met with an accident. Prior to setting off on 1 the journey he examined the tyres to see that they were all right. Defendant would say that his speed did not exceed 33 miles per hour on the concrete. There was no accurate evidence as to speed. Just after passing round the bend his tyre burst and the car went down the incline. Defendant did all that was possible to be done in the circumstances. A roadman who was working nearby, would say he heard a dull thud as of a tyre bursting. This witness saw the whole accident and would give a detailed account of what had happened. Defendant, William F. Sherry, said he had overhauled the tyres at Auckland on the day of the accident. Road Rather Rough.

Defendant said that for the first 19 or 20 miles the road is concreted. Where the concrete ended the road was rather rough, with a coating of loose metal. In driving on to the rougher road ’he slackened speed somewhat. When he came to the bend he further slackened speed. He had proceeded about 150 yards round the bend when he heard a dull thud' and hissing noise, and found the car swerving to the right side of the road and it steered down into the clay. It would have been unwise to apply the brakes when in the slippery clay. The back of the car swerved round and struck a telegraph pole. The car was badly damaged. The reason the. tyre was not produced was that he never saw the car after the accident. He did not know of anything he could have done to have avoided the accident. No one in the car had complained to him about the speed, which varied according to prevailing conditions. At the lime of the accident he was travelling at not more than 35 miles per hour. Answering Mr. Parry, defendant said that when he took over the car all the tyres were new. He had had the car for two months and had averaged 116 miles per day. He had had a puncture earlier in the day and had got a new tyre, discarding the old one. Mr. Parry: Why did you discard the old one?—Because I had run witli it flat. Mr. Parry: Did you not say this morning that' you had the tyre repaired and put back on the car? —I may have said so. . Mr. Parry: Was the tyre that was punctured put back on the car?—l cannot say. Mr Parry: As a matter of fact were riot all the tyres equally worn, and the one that gave out in the morning was merely the one to collapse first? He considered 35 miles a safe speed on that type of road. Tyres had Lot of Life. Re-examined by Mr Johnstone, defendant said that although the tyres may have been worn, they still had a lot of life in them. Edward Ryan said he was working on the Main South Road near the spot where the accident happened. He saw the car approaching round the bend, and stood out of the way to let it pass. He did not think the speed exceeded 30 miles an hour. When the car was almost opposite him he heard a heavy thud, as though it had run over a loose board. The car then swerved to the right. As soon as the back wheels left the metal the rear swerved to the right. The driver appeared to be trying to right the car, and turned its nose towards the metal again. After the accident he noticed that the right front tyre was flat. (Proceeding.)