DAMAGES CLAIM

Hokitika Guardian, 16 December 1933, Page 3

DAMAGES CLAIM

SEQUEL TO MOTOR . ACCIDENT JUDGMENT FOR, DEFENDANT.

Judgment was given for' defendant by Mr W. Meldnim,. S.M., -in the Hokitika. Magistrate’s ‘Court yesterday in the claim for damages arising out pi a motor smash on the Kanieri chad' last January. Albert' * ■Stopforth, of Koitqrangi, wajs- defendant and lie was proceeded, against by 1 Herbert Porter, claiming £42 IPs in. damages and depreciation, .and jointly by Ellen Harris, who plaimed;-£21:7 12s in damages and medical expenses. , Plaintiffs were represented by Mill. Twynelmn, of Cliristclnireli, .and defendant by Mr Tracey, of Christchurch, .who entered pleas of not guilty. Evidence for plaintiffs was concluded yesterday after neon, prior to the “Guardian” going to press. Counsel for defendant then cal.A >1

his witnesses. Constable R. Drummond said that when be reached the scene he was told that neither car had. been moylvl. P.orter’s car was over the centre line of the roau. Stopforth’s car was as far over to the side as the driver could get with safety. He detailed the interview he had had with each driver. Porter said that he had almost pulled up when the accident occurred. He examined the lights of Stopforth’s ear and found them in order.

To Mr Twyuehan witness said .there was evidence, when h© inspected the road, that defendant had endeavoured to reduce liis speed by braking. He, would not say that* Stopforth was speeding, but Porter had accused defendant of speeding. Mr Tracey said defendant’s evidence was that lie reached the top of the rise in the road when he saw Porter’s car approaching in the -middle of the J rood. Defendant slackened down his i speed and veered to the left, but Porter, bad held to the centre of the road. Stopforth sounded his horn, j and Porter’s car came further over on to the wrong side and the crash occurred. The combined speeds of the cars was 40' m.p;h. The. defendant,'Aloert Stopforth, confirmed the remarks by liis counsel concerning the activities of both cars leading up to the crash. He said he was driving with his lights dipped when the other car rounded the bend. Had plaintiff veered to the left instead of the right after defendant sounded the horn, the collision ivould have been avoided.

Stopforth asked Porter what he was doing on his wrong side, the latter replying: “It’s" all right', I’ve pushed your oar 'over.” Plaintiff tjhen accused him of speeding, and then, after lie had returned with the constable; lie referred to the dazzling lights. A passenger in the other car, Butler, told him that they were all asleep in the back seat when it occurred.

Mr Twyueham: Ho that you say lie made a. purely concocted story this morning when he denied being cisieep?—Yes., Mr Twyneham questioned defendant regarding his driving experience, and in reply lie mentioned that there were three people in the front seat of his car. He admitted, that lie had driven all the time with iifs lights dipped. He applied his break when about 15 to HI yards away, reducing speed to about i’O m.p.h. He told Porter after the' accident that the latter’s car was not stationary at the time of impact. . Richard Cummings, of Hokitika said he was in .thq car with defendant that Evening.' He outlined the particulars of the accident along the lines stated by defendant, and stressed the fact that the smash would have been avoided had Porter not swerved to his right.

Alfred Edwin Smith, insurance adjustor, said he examined plaintiff’s car, and lie knew of the damage to Stopforth’s. It was impossible to tell from the damage the speed at which care were travelling. There were features to be considered such as the weight of cars, and the angle of impact.

Dr B. L. Wilson detailed the injuries sustained bv Mrs Harris at the time

of . the ■ accident, , while to-day jshe appeared to be still suffering from

upset nerves

T : iie Magistrate held that the cause of. the collision lay'entirely with plain-

tiff in his negligence, or lack of skill

in not keeping to -his correct side

He should have slowed no and halted

before the light from defendant’s car obscured his vision, and not attempted

to pass before visibility became better. Defendant had done all he could to

avoid the accident by keeping well

to his left, and by braking his car

The collision was not due to his

negligence, and the brilliancy of liis

lights had been disproved

Plaintiffs were non-suited on each charge, with costs allowed to defend-