DAMAGES CLAIMED

Hokitika Guardian, 15 December 1933, Page 6

DAMAGES CLAIMED

SEQUEL TO MOTOR ACCIDENT

AT IvANIERI LAST JANUARY

In the '.Magistrate’s Court this morning A. Stopforth, of Hokitika (Mr Tracey), was proceeded against by H. Porter (Mr Twyneham) claiming £42 10s, and <E. Harris (Mr Twyneham). claiming £217 12s. Mr Twyneham said that the claims arose out of a motor accident near Ivanieri a year ago when Porter’s ca l ' and defendant’s car collided. Counsel claimed that plaintiffs car was struck, by another travelling at a fast rate, and also claiming that plaintiff’s car was stationery when the impact occurred. A woman passenger in his car had been injured and since then she had suffered 'from neurasthenia, while her face still bore scars. He claimed that the lights on defendant’s car had been focussed wrongly, thereby dazzling plaintiff. Herbert Porter, a commercial traveller, of Christchurch, said he was returning from the glacier late one night last January and was accompanied in the car by Mesdames Harris, Fox, and Hoar and a Mr TSutler. He said lie had passed through Ivanieri and wag continuing on his left when another car approached over a small hill and came straight for him. He slowed down,

but defendant’s car came on and' crashed into his own, causing considerable damage. He was claiming £25 as depreciation. Plaintiff said defendant’s speed would be about 30 to 35 m.p.h.

Witness said his own car had pulled

up before the impact occurred, and he could see no reason why defendant had not attempted to avoid a collision. Mr Tracey questioned the plaintiff, Porter, closely"regarding mileage, age and use, etc., of his car, relative to the depreciation claimed.

Plaintiff admitted to Mr Tracey that the lights on defendant’s car were so brilliant that he was blinded for a distance of from twenty to twenty-five yards. The night was pitch black. He could have pulled up, had he thought it necessary, in two yards. His first complaint to plaintiff was a query as to why he had not pulled up. Mr Tracey: You blamed Stopforth for several things before you mentioned the lights to him. The dazzle was the last thing of which you complained.

To Mr Twyneham he said he always tilted his lights to approaching cars. Mrs Helen Harris, of Christchurch, a passenger in Porter’s car, said she was in the front seat when the impact occurred. She had noticed defendant’s car, and stated that Porter had then sounded a warning and pulled up. Defendant had plenty of time to see the oilier and avoid it, but continued on. The impact was so severe that she was thrown through the windscreen. She received several deep cuts about the face and head, necessitating the insertion of many, stitches, and radium and continuous' medical treatment for a considerable -time afterward. To Mr Tracey she said she did not] think they knew which side of the ,Toad they were on after they; were caught by the approaching lights. Charles Joseph Butler, a contractor, of Wellington, another passenger in] plaintiff’s, car said he was in the back! seat. After passing the Kanieri Had, I they turned th e bend and were then blinded by Stopforth’s. lights. Up to then they were on the left side, but he did not know where they were . once th e other lights were on them. He reckoned the other car was travelling at 30 m.p.h.

To Mi’ Tracey : There was a sudden flash of lights, quickly followed hy the impact. He was only judging the speed hv the impact. Mr Tracey: Did you speak to Stopforth P—No. " You told him after the smash that all three in the back seat of your car wore asleep at the time?—l did nothing of the sort. I was not asleep., .

Mrs Hume Pox, of Greymouth, also a passenger in the back seat, gave evidence along the same lines as the previous witness.

V. M. Bergamini detailed the repair work done to Porter’s damaged car. Judging by the damage, the speed of the other car must have been all of 20 m.p.h. if Porter’s were stationary. Arthur William Appleton, motor 'mechanic, said he tested the lights on Stopforth’s car, and they were quite normal and correctly tilted. They were not of an undue brilliance. Jn fact they were a little less bright than two English cars in the garage vat the time. | Mr Tracey said Porter had admitted being blinded and going forty ya r ds on, finishing up on the wrong side of the road. Counsel claimed that was direct evidence of negligence on the part of Porter. The evidence produced had shown that the lights on defendant’s ear were not of undue brilliance, which contradicted the evidence which was the same in the 2 claims. The only facts were that there had been a flash of lights, a polling up of the car and a bang. I The occupants .of the car had no chance | of estimating Stopforth’s speed, beyondi a guciss of 30 m.p.h. after the impact, | yet the witness Bergamini, had said that the speed would he at least 20, m.p.h. Nothing had been shown in the evidence proving negligence on the part of defendant. 'He claimed the Bench should non-suit plaintiff on the! evidence. Mr Twynebam said that. Porter had acted in the usual manner under such

circumstances, casing up the car, and i stopping. 'Plaintiff’s witness had made it clear that the impact had occurred | after their car had stopped. There was no evidence that defendant had “braked” his car or done anything to avoid the [impact. There was greater opportunity for Stopforth to puli up than if he had been going fast.

The Bench said that Porter had done everything he could do in his power, and there was onus on defendant- to show that he had taken du e care. The Magistrate said he could not enter a non-suit at this juncture.