A MOTOR COLLISION

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIV, Issue 10293, 30 May 1919, Page 6

A MOTOR COLLISION

COUNCIL SUED

A CASE OF CONTRIBUTORY

NEGLIGENCE.

Action' was taken in the Magistrate's Court yesterday, before Mr F. V. Frazer, S.M., by John Do-very, carrier, of Wellington, who claimed from iho City Corporation the sum of iTU2 I4s Cd damages, occasioned through a collision between a trarncar and a mowr vehicle, driven by the plaintiff, in Wallace street, on January 4th, 1919. Tho statement of claim set out that u servant of the defendant corporadon, acting in the course of his employment, so negligently, carelessly, and unskilfully drove a trarncar, the property of'the'defendant corporation, ill' Wallace street, on January 4th. that it collided " with,. and damaged, •i motor-car, the property of the plaintiff. By reason of tne accident he had suffered damages to the extent of pairs 'to ear,'£sß 14s rxl; loss of earnings', '£l9;"and depreciation of car, KMo. Mr H. I<\ O'Leary appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr J. O'Shea (city solicitor) for the defendant corporation.

The plaintiff said ho was tne owner or a luggage van, and resided at 00, Wright street. On January 4th, he was driving his van out oi Hargreaves street into "Wallace street, when a iramcar, proceeding down a steep grade in Wallace street, collided with his vehicle, lifted it across the read, and footpath, and through a fence. Plaintiff said he was travelling at three to four miles an hour at the time, and >uw tho car almost upon him on emerging from Hargreaves street. As there had been heavy rain previously, he came to tho conclusiqn that the brakes would not hold tho car on tho loose rubble of the street, so he turned the wheels in the direction the tramcai was*, proceeding in order to attempt t(> avoid a collision. Had he put lus brakes on hard, the probability was tnat his van would have run straight into tn& tramcai, and possibly he would have been killed. He had been driving down the street for two years and a half, and on the present occasion ho did not Lear the gong on trarncar. The enr appeared to be travelling at a fast rate, and after the accident the motorman did not deny that he had failed to give warning of his ■ approach. All ho said when questioned was "Stiff luck." Witness stated he blow his car horn when approaching Wallace' street. Evidence was given for the plaintiff to tho effect that the trarncar was travelling at an excessive' speed for the locality, so much so that tho passengers were swayed about on the soat«.

Mr O'Shea said that the frames* was proceeding on its ordinary run, and there was no necessity to travel fast. It appeared that, the motorman did ' not sound the gong. The car was travelling at its usual rato of sp'eed;' the motor van appeared snd'de'nly."*an'd" although the brakes were applied'at'onee'a collision could not be averted. '

Daniel Rikihani, motorman, said he was driving his car down Wallace street "on the afternoon of January 4th, when the accident took place. Ho was not using power at the time, and liad the Hand-brake on. The plaintiff's car .appeared suddenly, and as far as he could gather it was travelling fifteen, miles an hour, while tho tramcar was travelling about■., seven miles an hour. The tramcar was brought to a standstill in half its own length. It was tho first week ho had been on the Wallace street run, and the only other mishaps he had during th'at "week' was a 'cart backing into the oar in Cuba street, and an allegation was made that a woman fell otf the car when starting. After hearing trie evidence, the magistrate said it was admitted that the locality was a dangerous one for traffic. A person driving down Hargreaves street had to get within six' feet of Wallace street before he could see a tramcar or any other vehicle approaching, and the driver of a tramcar was in a similar position. The court was of opinion that the motorman was driving his car down Wallace street on the occasion at a greater speed-than was usual, but there was also a duty imposed on tho driver of the motor van to take every reasonable precaution to avoid an accident in the main street, and he had to give place to the traffic in that street. If his van brakes were such and the road in such a condition that he was unable to pull up instantly when travelling at four miles an hour, he should have proceeded at a lesser speed.

The court held there was contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff, and judgment was given for the defendant corporation, with costs. Jlr O'Shea said tho City Council did not apply for costs.