DAMAGES CLAIM

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 8, Issue 55, 9 March 1945, Page 4

DAMAGES CLAIM

SEQUEL TO MOTOR ACCIDENT DECISION FOR PLAINTIFF

An interesting civil claim by Charles Tennant Smith (Mr B. S. Barry) against the Rangitaiki Dairy Com pany (Mr G. Otlcy) was heard ir the Whakatane Magistrate's Courl iast Tuesday before Mr E. L. Wal. S.M. Plaintiff claimed the sum of £(j5 special and general damage? sustained by him as a result of £ collision with a lorry owned by th( defendant company on Smith's Road on Aprij (> last. The question of thf sounding of the. horn 011 this narrow one-way road was a deciding factoi in the Magistrate's finding. Mr for said thai his client was proceeding along the road and on approaching a dangerous and obscured bend had sounded his, horn. He had scarcely startec to round the corner when he saw the cream collecting lorry almost upon him. It, was* quite impossible to avoid an accident although Lotli vehicles were swung hard over tc the side of the road. Smith's cat had been extensively damaged by striking the right front wheel ol the lorry. In a subsequent interthe driver of the lorry had admitted hearing the horn sounded. The plaintiff in. evidence, stated that the corner was a particularly dangerous one and though he had only been travelling at, 15 miles per hour ? when he heard no horn in answer to his. own. he had assumed the road was clear. On first sight of the lorry he had braked hard but owing to the steep grade it was im* possible to avoid the accident as there was no room for two vehicles to pass. To Mr Otley, witness said there was no question of speeding on either side. He had not heard the approach of the lorry and was only about twelve yards away when he first saw it. Corroborative evi. dence was given by plaintiff's wife who was a passenger in the car at the time of the accident, gave it as her opinion that no one could have avoided a collision under the circumstances. For the defendant company John Henry Simpson f the driver of the vehicle concerned gave evidence as to the manner of his approach and negotiation of the corner. Pie realised that the bend was a dangerous one and was; actually rounding it when he heard plaintiff's horn. He had scarcely time to apply the brakes and swung aside when the car appeared. He hugged the bank as close as he could and had pulled his truck up within nine feet. He was actually stopped when he felt the impact, of Smith's car. VisabiHty on the bend was practically nil, and according to subsequent measure. ments (> Smith had travelled mucn further than he after first sight, was obtained. He admitted having failed to sound his horn but would not admit undue care and attention. There was very little traffic on the road at any time. To Mr Barry J witness said that he was: not in the i habit of using his horn at the bend concerned. Henry Wallace Ward, garage superintendant for the Company j gave evidence as to the scene of the accident shortly afterwards when he had arrived in order to take over the damaged vehicle. He added that the approach of the lorry was usually heralded by the sound of the empty (Continued In next column)

cans which were being carried. He could not understand why another approaching vehicle had not heard it. "This. case ( as far as> I can see," said the Magistrate j in giving his de* "is singular in only one re-t spect—both parties have definitely told the truth as they saw it. Plaintiff's claim of negligence cannot be proved neither can his contention of failure to keep a proper lookout. The only weakness in defendant's case- is his failure to have sounded his horn on the approach of an obviously dangerous corner. Plaintiff sounded his horn which was heard by the defendant driver who instead of answering endeavoured to avoid an accident by swinging aside. This probably avoided a few seconds de- | lay but nothing more. I can't help ! thinking that had lie sounded his horn, as he should have done, plaintiff would have heard it earlier and been enabled to take the necessary steps. I find that the defendant driver was negligent in only one respect and that was the cause of the collision. That being so, I give judgment for the plaintiff claim of £65 and costs £6 15s.