TAXI OWNER SUED

Waikato Times, Volume 124, Issue 20785, 21 April 1939, Page 8

TAXI OWNER SUED

INTERSECTION COLLISION HAMILTON OPTICIAN'S CLAIM JUDGMENT GIVEN FOR PLAINTIFF Alleging negligence on the part of the defendant, claim was made In the Magistrate'* Court, Hamilton, to-day, before Mr S. L. Paterson, S.M., by Coll McDonald Mclhvraith optician, of Hamilton (Mr W. J. King: against Frank Bannister, taxi proprietor, of Frank ton (Mr K. L. Sandford), for £39 14s 6d, being special and general damages incurred by Mcllwraith in a collision between his car a taxi owned by defendant at Frankton on September 2 last. Defendant counter-claimed for £9, also alleging a breach of the righthand rule on the part of plaintiff, bo'-h claims being heard in conjunction. 4 The collision out of which the action arose occurred at the intersection of Norton Road and King Street, on September 2 last, shortly after 9.30 p.m., defendant’s taxi being' driven by William Sherry. Opening his case Mr King said Sherry had been approaching on McIlwraith s right but disabled himself from preventing the collision by reason of his speed and failure tJ keep a proper look-out. Mcllwraith's failure to give way was not due to negligence. “ Crossed Intersection at 12 m.p.h." In evidence, Mcllwraith said he changed down at the Norton Road inicrscction and kept on in second-gear. He had a clear view of the intersection just before entering it and saw the lights of the taxi, but he considered he had plenty of thne to cross the road before any other car could reach the intersection, providing it was travelling at a reasonable speed. "Witness himself crossed the road at about 12 m.p.h. Crosk-examined, witness sajd there was a slight misty rain falling at the time. He had heard defendant’s driver apply his brakes, but believed that Sherry had still considerable way on at the moment of impact. The taxi seemed to have been thrown back from the impact by the 6pring-action of the bumper. Robert Maxwell Walsh, public works foreman, of Hamilton, a passenger m Mcllwraith's car, said he had not a y noticed the taxi until he heard brakes screech and then plaintiff's was well over the centre-line of Norton Road. The impact was a heavy one. William Sydney Menzies, auctioneer, of Hamilton, said he was a witness of the collision, which he saw while standing at his sun-porch door in King Street. He saw the taxi about 150 yards away before the accident. It was the speed of the taxi, which he estimated at about 40 m.p.h., which attracted his attention to it. Witness also had a clear view* of the other car before the accident, and It appeared to be travelling slowly. At the point of impact there was ample room for the taxi to pass behind Mcllwraith’s car. To Mr Sandford, witness said he felt a collision would occur and remarked to a friend with him, ** Here is a smash corning." Maurice Victor West, newspaper employee, of Hamilton, stated that he was standing with Menzies in the latlers porch when Menzies remarked that there was a smash coming. There was definitely room for the taxi lo pass behind the car on the way to Frankton station, said witness, who added that a bus had passed the taxi, on the taxi's left, when it was pulled up after the impact. “ Not Hurrying to Station " Opening the case for the defence, Mr Sandford said Sherry was driving back to the stand at Frankton. There was no occasion for hurry and Sherry denied he was travelling at any high speed. The absence of material damage to the taxi, submitted counsel, was ground for the assumption that the taxi was not travelling fast at the moment of impact. Counsel suggested that the person with the opportunity to avoid the collision was Mcllwraith. Sherry, the driver of the taxi, said his speed would be about 30 m.p.h. That was the speed-limit within the borough and. said witness, the borough authorities were hard on the commercial driver who broke that by-law. Witness said he noticed a definite check in Mcllwraith’s speed about 15- A 20 yards from the intersection and as- ■ sumed that Mcllwraith was giving him i right-of-way, hut v/hen witness was actually on the intersection the other car accelerated and crossed in front of witness. His taxi did not bounce back after impact. To Mr King, witness said he thougnt th° accident occurred between 9.30 and 9.45. Ho was returning to the Frankton stand after taking a fare to town. Witness denied, however, that he was hurrying back to meet passengers coming off the 9.29 p.m. train.' Evidence was also given by defendant and by Walter Boocock, garage proprietor, * regarding the extent of damage to the taxi. Judgment for plaintiff for the full amount claimed, with costs, was given by the Magistrate. " I have no doubt in this case that defendant's driver was travelling at an excessive speed.'' commented Mr Paterson, who added that the fact that the taxi's speed attracted the attention of an independent witness was indicative of the fact that it was excessive.