SEQUEL TO COLLISION

Chronicle (Levin), 8 March 1948, Page 4

SEQUEL TO COLLISION

Both Parties Orlered fo Pay Damages A case in which the-piaintiff was awarded £133 ,16s 4d and the de.fendant £8 15s 9d on a counter claim was heard by Mr. A. M. Goulding, S.M., in the Magistrate's Court, Levin, Oh Ffiday. Plaintiff, Lionel Sinclair Abbott, assistant at the Levin Boys' Training Centre, •was represented by Mr. G. Cross- ' iey and defendant, James Puti, farmer, .'0f Uoro, by Mr. g. l McGregor. The claim arose out of an accident m the main highway between Otaki and Levin. Abbott had been traveiiing north in his c.ar and, on oy.ertaki.ng defendant's veliicie, struck it a giancing blow and over- ; turned on the grass verge. Mr. Cro.ssiey stated that Abbott had been ' ariving his car at approximately 40 m.p.h., and in the vicinity of ■ Tatum P.ark, Manakau, appro.ached Pgti's vehicie, which Was traveiiing at a lower speed, with the intention of pa'ssing. Abbott had not seen Puti make any •signal to indicate a ehange of direction, but when ahnost upon Puti's vehicie Puti made a sharp tuni to the right. A colljs.ion had oceufred and Abbott's vehicie had overturned. Abbott was q.uite cer•tain that Puti had given no indication of his intention to/ make •this turn, , In evidence, Abbott stated that the only vehicie in sight had been Puti's. He could vaguely remember passing another car, which he later discovered had been driven by Mr. E. B. O'Shea. When the vehicie he was passing made the ■turn, in an- endea-vour to a-void an accident, he had swuhg sharply to the right, travelled some distance along the verge, turned to the left to go back on to the road again and skidded. His car travelled sideways for a distance and then rolied once, coming to rest with its f our wheels in the air. Climbing out of the car, he had gone over to Puti and asked him if he ever put his hand out when making a turn, continued Abbott. Puti had said that he did put his. h'and out. He had then pointed out to Puti that the car window was only open some four inches, and that it would not have been possfble for him to have made • the Signal. ' ' Cross-examined by Mr. McGregor, Abbott denied' traveiiing at- ! Ov'er ' 4Q m.p;h. He admitted that ■'ihe h?4d not -attempted .to- -brake'. jWhen asked why. -he 'had not- brak': j-ed; Abbott Stated that had, he done 1 SQ*, there* "wouJd hhve been a faital- | fty. He 1 did mot know that ihe i had ' abtuaUy hit defendant's - car u'ntii later; > and denied that • the, car - had rsomersaulted' -at all-. • It; had i , only | rolied over once. -• Puti's >oar ,had /only moved two feet- from, the point of impact. . : . | M-r. McGregor : , Would : you. be tsurprised tq iearn that Puti's i,; car had been thrown 241 f.eet?— I would be staggered, : , • . - . , ■! For the defendant, .. Mn McGregor stated that Puti had been driving slowly. He knew that ,,.Q!Shea's .car.,was. heLind iji.m, would be shown that the onUcause M .tiiej accident >yuas athe Mgh. speed rat Which* piaintiif W^H^aVellfri^l ! Traffic Inspeetor M. -.Kehoe told jthe court liow he had taken some ' measur'ements and drawn a plan ! of the accident. He produced this, ; together with a photograph he had taken. Plaintilf's car had come to rest 54 feet pqst a milk stand it had knocked down. The window on the .driver's side of Puti's car had been open some eight inches, > and he had asked Puti to put his ! arm out through it. This he had J been able te> do, He did not know if the window had been moved ■between the time of the accident t and When he arrived. He could liot ! tell how the car liad aeted before | coming to rest .upside-,down. I He had been traveiiing north to '.a friend's farm, said Puti in eviI dence. He had pass'ed Mr. O'Shea, who was just gettihg into his car, and on a'pproachmg the gateway had indicated h.is .intention to. turn.^ Before Hhis be liad looked in the mirror and seen Mr. O'Shea's car some three chains behind. He had not seen Abbott's car until ~ it had' hit him. After striking his car, Abbott's vehicje had hit a' milk stand and then rolied over' three times. Defendant's wife stated in evidence that her husband had indi-. cated his intention to tuni right as they neared the gateway. Edmond Burke O'Shea, far.mer, of Manakau, said thaf h,e had seen no signal given by Puti. In his opinion, Abbott's car was traveiiing at 50 m.p.h. shortly before the collision. . - The magistrate held that the cause of the accident was the combmed -failure of Puti' to give an adequate signal and the excessive speed at Which Abbott was travelbng. Abbott h,ad been traveiiing at .an excessjvely high and dangerous ^peed, .he considered. Puti was wrong in that the regulations qompeljed a driver not only to make a Signal, but also to make sure that it was observed. He would, therefore giye judgment for Plaintiff, and for defendant on the counter-claim, He ordered costs, amounting to £7 ,2s to be paid by plaintiff.