COLLISION ON HUTT ROAD

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 61, 6 December 1918, Page 7

COLLISION ON HUTT ROAD

CLAIM FOR.,D-\JrAGIiS FAILS. ]» the .Magistral e's Court; yesterday morning, -Mr. W. G. Riddell, S'.M-.-, delivered reserved judgment in the case of J:-A. Beattie, for whom Mr. T. Neavo appealed, against' Frank T.' Moore, who had been represented''by the iate Mr. A. it. liindmarsh, to recover .£lllO in irospecl. to n motor collision. Lale on the night of August 27. defendant's mnlor-lnis was travelling from Wellington to Jolfusonville, and-wliou passing-. tli'o ooil stores on the Hurt Hood the driver stopped the bus in order to pick up a- lady passenger. As Ihe lady•• was crossing over lo the bus she noticed plaintiff's motor-car. which swerved and struck the sl-ationarv mntor-bus ".lipn.r -tlio left-hand wheel, and eaused tlio damage complained- of. Tho night was dark,, with a-'drizzling, rain. Plaintiff in his evidence stated that ho swerved to pass, the fady, that he did not see the motor-bus until he was almost on it, and that the motor-bus carried no tail light. At, passenger on board plainI ill's car also said that, the motor-bus had no tail light, and; that he first saw the biis when it was- about. 50. yards ahead. The. Magistrate held' that the tail light was- o\i,t before the collision, look place, but doubted, whether tho plaintiff was keeping as. careful 1 * lookout as. lie should have been. As'.plaintiff was travelling faster than defendant heiinust have been gradually, overhauling tlio motorbus, and consequently within'-the range of plaintiff's headlight*:.. Continuing,, the. Magistrate said; "Although defendant's driver may have been guilty of.negligence immediately prior to tlio time when the accident happened. I; .am satisfied . that. if plaintiff lisul been keeping a proper lookout he would have' bfoii iible -to soe.defendant's motor-bus in time to avert an accident. In other words, I consider thatplaintiff had a later opportunity of avoiding tho accident than defendant, and in. such a case it has ■been laid. down by authority that he cannot recover." In the cross action, Moore, v. Health l ; a claim for .C 25 for loss of use and damage lo the. motor-bus, the facts were thesame. Tii the case Tieattie. v. Moore judgment was given for the defendant, with costs ,£(!., and. in the. cross action- , Moore v. Beattie judgment was given for plaintiff,, evidence- to bo talcen lo assess the (lamage. -..-...