A COLLISION CLAIM

Hokitika Guardian, 24 October 1930, Page 5

A COLLISION CLAIM

At the Magistrate’s Court to-day A. B. Spiers (Mr Park) claimed from E. B. Roberton (Mr Tracy of Christchurch) £lO3 4s 4d for damages caused to his car in a collision: with defendant on the Christchurch Road on March 27th. (Continued.) AFTER NOON Si TTJ NG. The Court resumed at 2 p.m. E. B. Roberton, the defendant, gave evidence that he was a farmer and the driver of the car. . He left Hokitika that morning and the accident took place at 12 o’clock, approaching Rocky Point he saw the danger sign, was thengoing about 22 miles and then steadied' up to slightly under 20. Went round the corner well on his left side and then took the usual track’. Then saw the plaintiff’s car coining round the next corner about 31- chains away. The other car came round well out. As soon as he saw him, witness put'on the foot brake and steadied up and pulled to the left. The other car steadied up a bit and as he passed was going about 15 miles, As soon as witness saw the other car he steadied up and was only going at a walking pace. He kept as far over as possible. Witness agreed that the other car went into the water table. The other car was rocking and bumping and swaying. Witness did not feel any impact. Thought that lie had passed him safely, and it was only when he heard, glass breaking he. recognised there was an accident. He had kept, as' close;tb - the edge ns-pete-sible. His own mudguards were slightly bent' and the rear axle oap was knocked off. When he heard the crash he pulled into the Toad to a safe place, about 7or 8 yards away. Got out of his car and met Murtha half way between the two cars. Murtha said, “You didn’t sound your horn.’’ Witness said, “I gave you half the road.” Left Murtha talking to Richards, a passenger in witness’ car and went on to Spiers car. Saw marks in the water table and a mark that gave the impression that the front wheels had got out of the water tables. This was just about the place of the impact. While in the water table Murtha had ample opportunity to stop, if he had tried. When in witness’ car'going to Wainihinihi, Murtha said, “You were . going ■steady.” He gave the impression that he (Murtha) thought Ills car was insured. Before he left the car, Murtha said, “you would probably hear no more of the matter.” His car width was oft. 9in.

To Mr Park.—He did not report, the accident to the police.. He considered it was safer to keep moving than to stop. He could have pulled up if he had tried to do so.

(A plan was produced and witness differed from the other witnesses as to the actual location of the accident.)

Witness said when the collision took place his left wheel was just off the. metal of the road.

THE DECISION.

His Worship in giving judgment, stated in: this ease and as is usual in similar cases there is a considerable divergence in the evidence of the witnesses, and it is difficult to steer one’s way through the conflict of evidence, and get to what actually occurred. In the present case there were one or two points beyond dispute. One, the width of the road at'the point of intact. That was shown to be 14 feet of road on which it was safe to travel. That fact enabled him to arrive at what was the final cause of the accident. It is clear that the plaintiff’s car was turned to the left side and for 25 feet ran along the water table until it came to a stop. Plaintiff appears to have kept as far to the left as possible. The question was, had he left sufficient clearance space for the defendant's car to pass. His car Was sft. 6in, and allowing 6in. for clearance, made it 6ft, leaving SftTfor the defendant's car to pass, his width being sft, Sin. so that on the left there was 2ft 4in. of clear safe space on the danger side of the road—ample space for him to pass in safety. - . He did not think he was going at an excessive pace at the time. Worship said he found it hard to accept defendants statement that he was only going at 4to o miles an hour. He was inclined to take it that he was going much faster than that, because his car travelled on some distance after the impact. It cannot he said that he wanted to get .on a safe part of the road, as he was in no danger. There was little doubt but that plaintiff’s car was up against the bank and with the bump it got, it stopped immediately, while defendant continued on. He was not holding that defendant was going at a dangerous pace, but he must hold that defendant was guilty of negligent driving. The defendant’s car had ample room to pass safely, had it been properly driven. He held that defendant had it in his power to avoid the accident if he had been driving skilfully and that lie was to blame for the collision. On the question of damage, the repairs effected would be allowed. No amount would be granted for loss of use of the car ns no specific amount of loss had been proved. He . would accept Mr Uatv’s estimate of the loss by depreciation through the accident. Judgment would be given for cost of repairs £96 4s 4d, depreciation, £25, a total of £llß 4s 4d, Court costs £4 11s, counsel’s fees £lO 19s 6d, and witnesses costs £lO Is. Total: £143 15s lOd.