MOTOR COLLISION.

Press, Volume LXI, Issue 18413, 20 June 1925, Page 5

MOTOR COLLISION.

HEAVY DAxMAGES AWARDED.

At the Supreme Court yesterday, before his Honour Mr Justice JfacGregor and a jury of twelve. Martha Jane Hill, Hazel I>ashwool Sim. Wilfred Joseph Sim., barrister ami solicitor. Chrijiclmrch. and William Smith Mac Gibbon. public accountant. Christchurch. were awarded £l4lO 13s lOd damages against Tracy Cough and Charles David Gough. The ease, which, arose out of a motor collision on a country Toad, was continued from the previous day.

The total claims amounted io i'IS9S 7s } Ipd. and the individual claims were as follows:— Mrs Hill, special damages £l3 3s. general damages irJSO: Mrs Sim, general \*V?? S ?* 0 - T - Si", special damages i »,:, „'*• "• •- Mac Gibbon, special damages -108 Ps lOd.

Mr A. T. Donnelly, with him Mr C. S. i nomas, appeared for the plaintiff.;. Mr M. J. Uresson for Traey Gough, and Mr H. J. Lpham for C. 1). Gough. ™, T ' ie C! <so for tho defence was opened on J nursdny afternoon and Tracv Gough. continuing his evidence yesterdav, told Mr iJonnelly that the road was a good surface roao. with an easy crade. The drop from tite road was worse than that on the way up to the "Sign of the Kiwi." At the corner where the accident occurred there was a steep drop. After the accident Mrs Sim walked about two yards off the road, but witness and Mr Sim went after her because there was danger of her falling to the bottom of the valley. MacGibbou. in his evidence, had simply altered the statemeut made to hini by witness (0 meet his own ends. The story told by the witness Heed was wholly untrue, and witness denied that he had said be ran into tho other car in preference to risking going over the edge. Statements made by all the plaintiffs were untrue. Questioned by his Honour, witness said thai, drivers on tho West Coast, if they found they were going to be run into, would make a head-on collision. They would not. try to avoid the other car. This seemed tho only reasonable courso to adopt on such roads, where thero was a risk of driving over the edge.

Independent Evidence. Alfred Edwin Smith, motor-car importer, who had driven a car for 24 or 25 years, said ho inspected the Lees Valley road last Monday, and thought it the most dangerous road he had been on in any part of the South Island. There was a biff drop of 400 feet t0.500 feet on the right-hand side going up. At the place where the cars met the only thing to do was to pull up. It was quite impossible for two oars to puss moving. Under no circumstances whatever would witness endeavour to pass another car that was moving. The flat, portion of the road was 10ft .'tin wide. From then on it bentover to the curve of the hill. Witness found that a car coming down and sounding the horn could not be heard round the corner until it came into sight. • To Mr Thomas, witness said it was impossible for the Chandler, if it had stopped, to be drawn downhill by the Essex after the collision, as seemed to be indicated by the situation of the broken glass and the blood stains, which were some feet below the glass. Stewart James Wearn, advertising writer,, produced some photographs he had taken at the scene of the collision. Constable John Robertson, of Oxford, said he inspected the locality of the accident on tho day after the accident, in company with Mr Tracy Gough, Mr Gough pointed out a skid mark CJft long, made by Gough's car. He stated the drivers could see each other when 18 yards apart. At the point of impact there was twelve feet of good running road and in case of emergency one could go another two feet, though there was the beginning of a slope here. To 31r Donnelly, he Raid that the broken windscreen glass was 8} feet down hill from the point of impact, and the marks of blood were sixteen feet below the glass. Witness did not agree with all Mr Tracy Gough had told him about tho accident. •Charles David Gough, father of the driver and owner of the car, who was sitting in the front seat at the time of the accident, said, the car was travelling at eight to 10 miles on hour. At the corner witness saw MacGibbon's car approaching. Tracy Gough pulled up, it seemed almost instantaneously. They waited a second or two while MacGibbon came up tho hill and into witness's ear. "Witness thought there was no chance of an accident, and that MaeGibbon would pull up.' After the accident witness went to sco Mr Sim in hospital, and Mr Sim said he thought no one was to blame, and he was glad the accident was no worse. To Mr Thomas, witness said statements made by Mr Sim and other plaintiffs were incorrect. Witness and Mr Sim wero neighbours, and witness naturally went over to see how tho patients Were, but he denied that he had said one word about tho'accident. t His Honour: Then if Mr Sim says differently he is telling a pack of lies?— Well, yes. Witness was further cross-examined by Mr .Thomas regarding the conversation with Mr Sim at Oxford. Dr. Charles. H. Gould and, Dr. C. H. Newton gave evidence regarding Mrs Hill's health. Elizabeth Gough, wife of O. D. Gough, and Wilfred Peers, a relative, who were in the car, gave evidence in support of that given by defendants. Joseph Henry Suckling, motor engineer, gave evidence, and this closed the case for. the defence. Mr Donnelly was granted leave, to call a surveyor, and George Hanmer,- a licensed surveyor, gave evidence that, there-, was 15ft of roadway from the face of the hill to the survey pipe. There was two feet of. roadway beyond that. After the luncheon adjournment counsel delivered their addresses to the jury.

His Honour's Summing TJp. His Honour, in summing up, stated that there were really only two big questions to be considered in the case. Tho first was that with regard to negligence, and the second' concerning damages. If the jury'were satisfied that the driver of defendant's car was negligent then both'lie and liis father were responsible because at tho time of tho accident the son was the temporary agent of thd father. It was for the jury to say if there was any contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiffs. Really the case rested on the ono broad question. 'That was whether the jury. believed the story told by the plaintiffs or that told by the defendants. One of these stories must he true, and he charged the jury to put aside all theories. The defendants, it had been contended, he said, had made several statements after- the accident arid thdso were, it was said,,in keeping with plaintiffs' story. If this were so then these previous statements did hot comply with what the defendants had said in the witnessbox. The defendant Tracy Gough appeared to have tho fixed idea that he could approach another car and have a head-on collision on a bad rond if he did not wish to take the risk of going round on the outside. It was apparently his idea that he- could go from side to side of the road, and there was nothing in the evidence to explain why Gough did not try to go round on tho correct side of the road. He had apparently deliberately refrained*-from doing this. - ■■ The jury retired at -4 p.m. and returned half-an-hour later with the following answers to the questions which they were required to consider:—.

(1) Was Tracy Gough guilty of negligence

in—(a) Driving at an excessive speed?—■ Unanswered. (b) Failing to sound the horn?— Unanswered. (c) Driving on the wrong side?— Yes. - (d) Failing to have his car under proper con trol? —Unanswered. (c) Failing to stop in time to prevent a collision '! —Yes. (2) If yes, was such negligence a direct cause of the accident? —Yes. i (3) Was Tracy Gough acting - -■ as. his I father's agent?— Yes. (4) Damages, if any—(a) Mrs Hill, £Bl3 ] 355; (b) Mrs Sim, £400; (c) Mr Sim, £126 ! ° (o) Was plaintiff MaeGibbon guilty of negligence in— ' , . ' ,' . I (a) Failing to sound his horn?—^o. (h) Failing to pull up in time to avoid an accident? —No. (6) If ves. was such negligence a contributory 'cause to the collision?— Unanswered. „ (7) Damages, if any?—W. b. MacGibbou £79 5s lOd. . The total damages awarded by the jury were, therefore, £1419 13s lOd. . 3ir Donnelly asked for judgment m accordance with the jury's finding. Judgment was accordingly given in favour of vlaintiffs for the amount above stated with ; costs according to scale.