MOTOR COLLISION

Hokitika Guardian, 22 June 1933, Page 6

MOTOR COLLISION

AN INTERESTING JUDGMENT. NELSON, June 20. An interesting judgment in a motor collision ease was given by Air T. E. iuaunseli, g'.M. Onuecemoer bO, 1932, a service car owned by Gibbs (Nelsbnlj Motors Ltd.,' eanVe into collision with a Christchurch cat; at' an intersection. The driver of the Christchurch car, L. P. Smith, was thrown oveWthe wail of tlicV Nile street bridge into the: brook below, and was subsequently convicted oh - a charge of driving at a dangerous speed, in the present - case Mr Maunsell was considering further proceedings in Which Gibbs motors, Ltd., sued V. P. Smith for £3l las' 6d for alleged ; damaged .to a service car in a cdllision

The Magistrate upheld the' contention of the defendant that although; tnere had been negligence in the dfiv. ing of the defendant's car; there was also negligence in. file, driving of tlie service car and the plaintiff could not succeed. He said that! in accidents of this kind in alhiost every case the.principle of the last opportunity of avoiding an accident did not apply, be-, cause the negligence of both parties was almost simultaneous. The service car driver was clearly guilty of a breach of the “offside” rule. It was conceded by the plaintiffs’ counsel that the failure to' observe the rule was, prima facie, negligence, but it could be rebutted and circumstances might 'arise in which it would be rebutted. An instance would be where a driver of a car passed an intersection without knowing it was there, hut in this case the plaintiff well aware of the intersection and its nature and proceeded on his course without taking any special precautions to see that there was no approaching vehicle on'his right. The object of the rula was to provide for cases such as. this and to prevent collisions 'at intersections. Judgment for plaintiff would lull motorists into false security by' giving them the idea that the “offside” rule need not be strictly observed. This was not so. If a motorist was approaching an intersection in which he could not see to the right he must assume that a car migJifc be approaching from the right and anticipate the possibility of having to give way.' He was not entitled to say that he did not know if there was anyone coming or not. The rule was a valuable rule and if properly observed by all drivers safety on the road was greatly increased. In the circumstances plaintiff must fail. Judgment would be for defendant with costs.