Successful Damages Claim Follows Collision

Chronicle (Levin), 12 June 1948, Page 2

Successful Damages Claim Follows Collision

-A claim for £43 16s 3d damages 1 resulting from a collision between i two motor-cars oif the main high- j way, near Waikanae., was heard in . the Magistrate's Court, Qtaki, on Thursday by Mr. H. J. -Thompson, S.M. . The plaintiff in the case was^ James Arthur Ferguson,- Weiling- ■ ton, and he was represented by Mr. T. P. McCarthy, while the defend-i ant was Maurice Drew Winton, of Wanganui, for whom Mr. J. D. Tizard appeared. I It was stated by Mr. McCarthy that a car owned by plaintiff and 1 driven by his brother • had been approachrng a corner just north of the bridge when two cars came towards him, the seconci one appearing to be partly on the wrong side of the road. Before he could do anythlng, this car had struck his vehicle on the right-haird side, causing a certain amount of dqm'The plaintiff 's brother, Jolin Chesner Ferguson, who had been driving the car at the -time of the pollision, gave evidence to this effect. He said that he had been driving back from Feilding, and had been travehing at from 25 ro30 m.p.h. His Iights had bben functioning pr'operiy and none of his party had been 'drinking. When approaching the corner, he said he bad noticed a . large car coming from the opposite direction, and had then seen a second one behind \ it, which he noticed was over the j white line. He did not think the j speed of the vehicle ha*d been texcessive, but judged ic to he from 35 to 40 m.p.h. Ferguson then :described how, after the crash, he had looked to see if anyone in his car had been hurt, and had then gone back to the other car in case they required help. j Cross-examined by Mr. Tizard, ! Ferguson said it had taken him | approximately three hours to travei i from Palmerston North to the piace jwhere the accident occurred. He j had actually been on the straight' as he came out of the bend before he ) saw the Iights of defendant's. car. Ilt had been raining persistently jprior .to the accident,. 'but just .1 before it happened had'cleared up. lAsked whether he could say if the white iine v/as visible at the time, Ferguson said that he could see it quite clearly in his headlights. There had been a f^ir amount of traffic on the roa, although it had been mostly travefling. in a southerly direction.

Questioned again by Mr. McCarthy, plaintiff alleged that one of Winton's passengers had said that defendant was on his wrong side at the time of the accident. William Blackie, a„ witness for plaintiff, toid the court that he had been a pass,enger in, the front seat of Fergusoii's car. He also had seen the defendant's .car. and considered that it had been some 18 inches over the centre 'line of the road. The white iine had been -clearly visible. From the way Winton's car was travelling, it appeared that he was trying to pass the car ahead. Under closs cross-examination by Mr. Tizard, witness said that most of the glass from the accident was on defendant's side of the road. An independent witness, Sergeant Arnold Francis Coker, a sergeant m the Regular Forces, who had been travelling behind Ferguson's vehicle for some miles before the accident, corroborated the evidence for plaintiff, stating that at no time had Ferguson given the appearance of. not driving carefully. His speed had been from 25 to 30 m.p.h. He had stated that he had seen defendant's car approaching Ferguson's vehicle, and it was from about one foot to 18 inches over the white line. Ferguson had been wholly on his correct side. The Case For Defendant Maurice Drew Winton said that he had been driving the car, a hired one, at a fairiy moderate speed. He contended that at the time of the accident it had been raining and visibility v/as poor. He had been travelling at about 25 m.p.h. He could not see the white line, which was very indistinct, and had taken as a guide the edge of the bitumen ' on his side of the road. It was his opinion that piaintiff's car had been on the wrong side of the road. He described the damage suffered by his car. Cross-examined by Mr. McCarthy he admitted that there had been three people in the front seat of his car, but he had not been cramped for room. Normally he travelled at about 25 m.p.h. if the road was busy and it was a bad night. He said that he had taken no regard whatever of the white line. He reiterated his contention that piaintiff's car had been about 18 inches over his correct side of the road. He did not suggest that Ferguson had been travelling at an excessive speed. Max Vivian Burton, a passenger in defendant's car, testified along the same lines. , He said that the piaintiff's car had appeared to Swing out towards the cbntre of the road just before the si&ash. He had been watching the side of the road ail the way, and was certain that- Winton had been on the right side of the road. However, under close questioning by Mr. McCarthy, he admitted that he had not been watching it a second prior to the accident. In his summing up, Mr. Thompson remarked that it was a fairiy simple claim. There clearly must have been negligence on the part

of one or the otner. The evidence put for the plaintiff was that he had been on the correct side of the road and had been travelling at a proper speed. This had "oeen substantiated by an independent witness who had followed plaintiff for some miles, He had been quite definite th^it defendant had been some 18 inches over the white line. Defendant on the other hand, claimed that olaintiff had been on the incorrect side of the road. The erash had occurred in a matter of seconds and it was very difficult to judge correctly. Happily, however, the independent witness had been quite definite on the'se 'p.dints and, therefore, he held defendant to be negligent and awarded damages ior the full amount claimed. Costs amounted to £8 4s.