CLAIM FOR DAMAGES.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 5111, 6 April 1927, Page 2

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES.

SEQUEL TO MOTOR COLLISION.

TIROHIA QUARRY CO. TO BLAME

Written judgment in the claim of J. Dawson, plumber, Hamilton, against the Tirohia Quarry Co. for £3O, in which it was alleged that the defendant company had negligently driven a truck across the main Pae-roa-Te Aroha road ■so as to collide with plaintiff’s ear, was given by Mr F. W. Platts, S.M.,’at the local Magistrate’s Court on Monday.

The case was heard at a sitting of the Court held on March 8, when the magistrate reserved his decision pending an inspection of the site where the collision occurred. The judgment was as follows “The facts of this case are simple. Defendants own a quarry near the road between Te Aroha and Paeroa. Stone from the quarry is carried in trucks over a tramway from the face to the railway. The tramway, after reaching a loop, runs for 70 or 80 yards, on a fairly steep descent, parallel with the road. It then makes almost a right angle turn acro.ss the road, and goes on towards the railway. A growth of ti-tree on the right-hand side hides this bend of the tramway across the road, and, as the rails are almost level with the surface of the road, they’ are not noticeable until one is close upon them. The tramway is undoubtedly a danger to motorists driving towards Paeroa. “Plaintiff was driving his car at a reasonable pace from Te Aroha to Paeroa on May 5 last. As he approached the tramway he saw’ a string of laden trucks —four in num-ber-drawn by a horse, coming down on the rails parallel with the road. There was nothing to indicate that the trucks were about to cross the road. Plaintiff swears that he was unaware of the line across the road, and did not notice it until he was within 10 yards—a statement anyone who inspects the locality must accept as reasonable and credible. “The 'horse attached to the trucks was driven by Thomas B. Williams, an employee of defendants. Williams was riding on the first truck. The only brake was attached to the last truck. It is clear, therefore, that whatever emergency arose the driver could not check the momentum of his heavily laden trucks with the brake.

“Williams swears that he first saw plaintiff when the latter was a chain away from the crossing, while he himself, at the leisurely pace of two to three miles an hour, was moving on to it. He says he could easily have pulled up his horse and stopped the trucks, although, for obvious reasons, he could not apply the brake. He suddenly realised that a collision was imminent; and thereupon he jumped from his seat and abandoned the horses and trucks to their own course with the result that the trucks, carrying seven and a half tons of metal, dashed into plaintiff’s car, carried it along sideways into the scrub off the road, and did considerable damage. Lookings at all the facts, the Court finds that there was negligence on the part of Williams, and th,at caused the accident. The defendants must be held liable.

“A good deal of the evidence given by the witnesses Williams and Tilsley proved, upon an inspection of the site of the accident, to be unreliable.

“To prevent further accidents at this level crossing a warning of the danger should be erected there. "There will be judgment for plaintiff for £25, being £5 plaintiff’s share of the cost of repairs, £l5 for depreciation of the car, and £5 damages for the loss of the use of the car, with costs amounting to £lO 95.”