MOTOR AND TRAM COLLISION

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 223, 15 June 1921, Page 5

MOTOR AND TRAM COLLISION

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FAILS. In the Magistrate’s Court yesterday before Mr. E. Pago, S.M., A. Stannard, carrier (Mr. A. M. Salek) proceeded against the city corporation (Mr. J. O’Shea) to recover the sum of .£B5 16s. 2d. for damages alleged to have been sustained by reason of a servant of defendant negligently driving a tramcar in Hopper Street, in that the tram was foroed against a stationary motor truck belonging to the plaintiff. The claim was for -£-W ISs. for repairs to the motor truck, X3G for loss of work for twelve days, and JlB 18s. 2d. for loss of motortruck tools. The city corporation counter-claimed for XlB, and contended that the damage to the truck was caused solely through the plaintiff’s negligence in failing to have any light on the vehicle: that owing to the darkness the motorman in charge of the tram did not perceive and could not have seen the truck, until it was too late to avoid the accident; and, further, that by _ reason of the accident caused by plaintiff’s alleged negligence, the tramcar was damaged, and the repairs were estimated to cost x£lB. Mr. Salek said that tho claim arose out of a collision between the tramcar and the plaintiff’s motor truck. The plaintiff was driving a car of an old style, and when it stopped the headlight wont out'. Tho plaintiff carried a lamp, which was lit as soon as he stopped. Gounsel contended that tho whole point in tho case was whether a light was showing on tho motor truck when the collision took place, and, if there was a light, whether it was obscured so that the motorman could not seo it. Lengthy evidence was tendered, and at the close tho Magistrate said that. the plaintiff had not proved to his satisfaction that a light was visible on the truck when the collision occurred. On the claim judgment would be given for the defendant corporation. With respect to the counter-claim, tho Magistrate said he had some difficulty. Mr. O’Shea thereupon withdrew the counterclaim. Judgment was given for the defendant on the claim, with costs and expenses totalling £1 14s.