CLEARLY NEGLIGENT

Hawke's Bay Herald-Tribune, Issue 166, 31 July 1937, Page 6

CLEARLY NEGLIGENT

County Employee Who Backed "Blind" (From Our Own CorrespondentV WAIPUKUEAU, Last Night. "There is no question in this case as to the liability of the county," said Mr J. Miller, S.M., in giving judginent for plaintiff in the only defended civil action in the Magistrate's Conrt at "Waipukurau to-day. Herbert William Thompson, a farmer, of Porangahau, proceeded against the "chairman, councillors and. inhabitants" of the County of Patangata for an amount of £14 1/3 lo cover damages he elaimed had been done to his car by one of the council's lorries on November 4 last. 1 Mr S. Averill appeared for plaintiff and Mr E. J. W. Hallett for the defence. Stating his client's case, Mr Averill Biiid that the amount elaimed was the amount of a Tepair bill occasioned when tho lorry had been backed into plaintiff 's car on the road from Porangahau to Waipukurau. Some time prior to seeing the Couneil lorry spreading gravel on the road, Thompson had passed another lorry laden with wool. lie pulled up on seeing the council tvuck, as there was no room to pass, and stopped on the left side of the road about 50 yards away. The lorry, however, began to back with ita tip up, so that the driver's view to the rear was obscured. Plaintiff, seeing the. possibility of a collision, tooted his horn vigorously, but could not at* tract the council driver's attention. He was afraid to go into reverse and back away too soon, as he was in a dip and was afraid of causing trouble for the wool lorry he thought was behind him. Evidence on these lines was given by the plaintiff and other witnesses. Mr Hallett said the dei'ence would be thai plaintiff had ampl0 chance to avoid Ihe accident. The driver of the truck would tell the Court that, from the time he started to reverse until he hit the lorry, he had backed not more than 25 feet. The plaintiff admitted that the lorry was still on the metal it had spread, and 25 teet was about'the limit of distance a load would cover. This would show the plaintiff was too close for safety. Gcorge William Eadd,. driver of the council's truck, gavo evidence on these lines. Summing up, his Worship said that the regulations jjermitted vehicles used in ioad work to do things that in ordmary circumstances would be breaches of the law. That had to be, or no road maintenance work could be car* ried on. However, in this case the workman was certainly wrong in thinking that traffic behind , should stop on its incorrect side of the road. The wr.rkman was clearly negligent in backmg blindly, and he had done au unexpccted thing in backing with the tip tray up. J What the plaintiff should have done, perhaps, was to reverse, but he was in an awkward position, and the Court could not hold that against kim. What he did do was reasonable in the circumstances; therefore judgment would bo entered for the amount elaimed, with costs, £1 10/-, and solicitor's iees £2 32/%