Widow Claims £10,058 From the Crown

Chronicle (Levin), 15 February 1949, Page 3

Widow Claims £10,058 From the Crown

A elaim" for £10,058 15s is being made by Mareia C. Noara, a widow, of Opiki, against tlie Crown as a result of a level crossing tragedy at Makerua on April 9, 1948, wlieu a truck driven by her husband, Luigi M. Noaro, was struck by tlie southbound Napier-We)-lington express, resulting in the dseath?i of Noaro and a Maork named Peter Heremai. Tlie hearing of the elaim began in the Supreme Court at Palmerston' Xorth yesterday before , Mr. Justice :Hay and a jurv of 12.. Mr, Gv Rowe, with him Mr. J. A. L. Bennett, is appearing for the suppliant and Mr. G. 1. "McGregor, with him Mr. R. A. Burns, represents the Crown. The hearing is expected to last three days. Outlining the case for the suppliant Mr Rowe stated that the deceased Noaro luid been loadirig and unloading produce from his trnck at the Makerua railway siding on April 9, 194;8. He was assisted by two employees, Heremai and Te Rore Tupou. Driving back to his farm over the crossing the truck had stalled. No train had been in sight as the" truck approached the crossing but before the men could jump clear Heremai had called a warning that the | express was coming. Noaro and Heremai had been killed but Tupou had escaped and would be able to give evidence of the circumstances. I It would be alleged, said counsel, that there was negligence on the part of the Crown in the running and man- ! agenient of the express, that there had 1 been negligence on the part of the employees of the Crown in tlie driving 1 of the express that the driver and firej man had failed to keep a proper look out for obstructions on the linc, that

the train was travelling at an excessive speed having regard to the nature of the crossing, that no warning whistle j had been given by the expi;ess, that employees of tlie Crown had permltted the approach of the train to become obstructed and that the Crown liad failed to provide warning devices at a crossing habitually us'ed by the public. Mr. Rowe referred to willow irees which at the time of the accident had been allowed to grow so tall that they obstructed the view from the crossing of approaching southbound trains. These had since been cut back. In addition, it would be alleged that a rake of trucks was so drawn up at the siding that they further obstructed the view from the crossing of approaching rail traffic. The defence is a complete denial of the allegations of -negligence and niakes counter allegations of negligence on the part of tlie deceased. As an alternative defence contributory negligence on the part of deceased is alleged.