FARMER SUCCEEDS

Waikato Times, Volume 122, Issue 20466, 5 April 1938, Page 8

FARMER SUCCEEDS

INSURANCE CLAIM SEQUEL TO ACCIDENT DISPUTE OVER BRAKES A claim for £3O 9s against the Public Mutual Insurance Company of New Zealand (Mr. W. J. King) was brought in the Hamilton Magistrate's Court this morning by E. J. Porter, farmer, of Tamahere. Mr. S. L. Paterson, S.M., presided. For plaintiff Mr. D. Seymour said the claim was made in respect of expense suffered by plaintiff as the result of an accident at Tamahere, in which a motor-truck owned by plaintiff was involved. Defendant company alleged that the accident was caused through the inefficiency of the brakes on the truck and that a clause in the policy held by Porter in respect of the truck provided that if the brakes were inefficient the defendant company did not incur liability. Mr. King explained that when the vehicle came out from a side street there was no slackening of speed. It was not being contested whether the car did not lose pace because of the non-application of the brakes or because the brakes failed to function. The issue was whether the brakes were inefficient prior to the accident. "Below Standard” Robert Joseph Laird, engineer and assessor, of Auckland, said he had examined the truck and both hand and foot brakes were not up to the standard required by the motoring regulations. He attributed the condition of the brakes to worn lining and lack of adjustment. Albert Fowles, foreman mechanic, of Hamilton, said when he had been asked to inspect the truck after the accident he had noticed that the chassis was slightly bent round the steering box. On getting into the truck he found that the brake pedal went down to the floor and he had remarked at the time that the brakes were very poor. Witness formed the impression that the damage suffered by the vehicle could not have affected the brakes. Questioned by Mr. Seymour, Philip Arthur Roach, panel-beater, of Hamilton, said that the bolt on the rear spring could have been shorn off by an impact but he could not say whether this would have affected the braking. Bon’B Evidence Plaintiff’s son, Roy Edwin Porter, lorry-driver, of Te Kauwhata, stated that he had 13 years’ experience with rnotor-trucks and was a self-taught mechanic. He considered that the brakes were in good order prior to the accident and that their subsequent condition was due to the blow received In the accident. “The burden of proof in this action rests with the defendant company and I am satisfied that the evidence of the witness Laird is most remarkable for the conclusions jumped to and the number of things he didn’t do,” said Mr. Paterson. He added that the defendants had not brought evidence to show that the brakes were not affected as a result of the accident and had therefore 'failed to prove their case. “The evidence of Mr. Porter’s son is convincing,” he added, “and he seems to have known the exact condition of the truck.” Judgment was given to the plaintiff for the amount of the claim and the defendant company were ordered to pay costs.