MOTOR COLLISION.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXX, Issue 5516, 20 December 1929, Page 3

MOTOR COLLISION.

CLAIM AND COUNTER-CLAIM.

BOTH PLAINTIFFS NON-SUITED. Mr Platts, S.M., gave his reserved decision at the Magistrate’s Court, Te Aroha, on Friday in the cases Devcich, of Te Aroha, v. Kenneth George Buchanan, of Tirohia, a claim for £2l 16s 4d, damages caused by a motor-car collision, and Buchanan v. Devcich, a counter-claim for £55. Both claimants were non-suited. The magistrate in his decision said : “The collison took place between Te Aroha and Paeroa on a narrow causeway near Waitoki that has just room for two cars, driven carefully, to pass with safety. There is a sharp drop of 6ft or 7ft on each side into swampy ground. There are cross-actions, the drivers blaming each other for negligent driving. Each one seeks to recover damages from the other. The negligence Devcich alleges against Buchanan is -that he failed to keep to the left when passing plaintiff, and that he drove on to the causeway before plaintiff came off. As to the second ground of complaint, the causeway is part of the highway between Te Aroha and Paeroa. Buchanan had a right to traverse it without waiting for Devcich to cross. In the “cross action Buchanan alleges that a collision was caused by Devcich’s negligence in driving on his wrong side at an excessive speed without keeping a proper lookout. We dan at once eliminate the charges of excessive speed and failure to keep a proper lookout, as the evidence does not support them, nor does it support the statement that Devcich was under the influence of liquor at the time. We have left the mutual charges that each driver failed to keep to his left when passing the other and so caused the collision. Each driver swears that as the cars approached ojne another he slackened speed and drew to his proper side as far over as safety would permit in the darkness, each being well aware that if he went too far ever to his left his car would go over the bank, and although they may have honestly believed they had so drawn over, it is clear from their respective position immediately after the accident that both are wrong, for each one, and particularly Devcich, could have gone out to his left further than he did. Still, the evidence shows that Buchanaifs car, after the accident, was well on his correct side of the road, and that Devchich’s van was then also on its proper side. As for the speed of the cars, Herbert Pratt, the passenger in Buchanan’s sar, says : ‘I yelled out to Buchanan to stop. He'applied his brakes. He was already nearly stopped. At the impact he had stopped.” Buchanan says he had stopped just before the impact. Devcich claims that . his speed was not more than five or six miles an hour as he approached Buchanan. The violence of the collision, however, shows that his evi--dence cannot be quite correct, although it is clear that there was no undue speed on either side. We have this position then ; As Devcich approached , the end of the causeway Buchanan entered it. Both, fearful of an accident, were driving carefully and slowly, for each knew the danger of passing on a narrow road with r a sharp fall on either side. It was a dark night, and there must, have been the added disadvantage of dazzling headlights. The cars in trying to pass collided. There was no independent witness of the collision. The evidence of the parties as to the events prior to the accident, and as to the accident, are at hopeless - variance, and considering all the circumstances it cannot be regarded as valuable. There is a great deal of ' evidence relating to the position of the cars after the collision which is I also very conflicting. The accident ' happened at about 7 p.m. Some of the witnesses arrived at 8 p.m. The evidence of others who came on the scene at 9 o’clock is of little value, for between 8 and 9 the position of the cars had been changed and a good deal of traffic had passed. There is one independent witness, however, Mr Hannah, 'a farmer, who reached the spot, attracted by the noise of the impact, and his evidence is of special value. Negligence' must be affirmatively 'proved. Which driver deviated from his course and so caused the accident ? Although each driver blames the other there is no conclusive evidence to answer this all-important question. It is possible that in the excitement of the moment and the glare of the headlights both drivers were at fault. In kthese circumstances the Court must both plaintiffs, leaving each to pay his own costs. Mr McGregor, who appeared for Buchanan, asked the magistrate to fix the costs of appeal, and they were fixed at £l5 15s. !