UNUSUAL ACCIDENT.

Waikato Times, Volume 117, Issue 19599, 11 June 1935, Page 4

UNUSUAL ACCIDENT.

COLLISION IN SAND PIT.

DAMAGES CLAIM SUCCESSFUL. A claim for £2B 9s as the result of an accident to his lorry was made by Michael Sklenars, a carrier of Hamilton, from George James Baker, a carrier of Hamilton, in the Magistrate’s Court, Hamilton to-day before Mr S. L. Paterson, S.M. Mr N. S. Johnson represented the plaintiff and Mr J. G. Taylor appeared for the defendant. Mr Johnson stated that the claim was the result of an unusual accident in a sand pit in Hamilton East on February 8. The plaintiff, Sklenars, was in the pit loading sand. He had just finished loading and had started to move out, when he noticed defendant’s lorry backing into the pit. Plaintiff stopped and blew bis horn, but Baker’s lorry still came back and crashed into the front of plaintiffs lorry. The tail board Avent over the bonnet of Sklenars’ lorry and smashed the cab while the radiator was also broken. The damage to the truck cost £l6 9s to repair, while plaintiff bad to secure another truck for seven days. Miohael Sklenars gave evidence on the lines as outlined by his solicitor. After the accident Baker said to witness that as it was late he did not expeot anyone to be in the pit. Defendant also stated that he went to place his foot on the brake but struck the accelerator. Thomas Francis Dowd gave corroborative evidence, but he stated that plaintiff’s lorry was still moving when the accident occurred. Case for Defence. The contention of the defence as submitted by Mr Taylor, was that Sklenars was contributorily negligent in moving forward after he had seen witness. A person entering- the pit was at a grave disadvantage as lie had to watch a gully on the side of the roadway and owing to the bend could not see distinctly behind until he looked through the rear window after lie had passed the bend. Defendant in evidence, stated that in his opinion plaintiff should have ■stopped his lorry and backed it again. Witness bad often been in the same position and always went back realising the disadvantage the lorry driver backing down, was under. His Worship in giving judgment for the full amount claimed, with costs, held that defendant was negligent in backing round a “blind” corner without taking reasonable precautions or ascertaining if another lorry was in the pit. He would also accept plaintiff’s statement that he stopped when lie saw defendant’* lorry backing down the pit.