CAR COLLISION

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 1, Issue 209, 28 April 1932, Page 6

CAR COLLISION

DAMAGES AWARDED MAGISTRATE FINDS ONE DRIYER GUILTY OF NEGLIGENCE. ACCIDENT NEAR WAIRAKEI. Holding that the accident had been a result of defendant' s negligence in negotiating a corner, Mr. S. L. Patterson, S.M., yesterday awarded damages to the Dominion Life Assurance Co., Ltd. (Mr. M. H. Hampson) in an action brought against I. C. Hobday (Mr. J. Hore), a student of Auckland, in respect of a motor accident which occurred near Wairakei on August 25, 1931. The collision in question occurred between a car driven by Dudley Rose, an inspector of the plairrtiff company, and another car driven by the defendant. Both "cars were extensively damaged and it was in respect of this damage that the plaintiff company made its claim. The case was opened on Tuesday afternoon and concluded yesterday morning. Damages claimed totalled £120 10s but some deductions were made by the magistrate from the full amount claimed. Dudley Rose, inspector in the employ of the plaintiff company, and the driver of the car, stated that he was accompanied by a Mr. Bunning, another ofticer of the company. Both were on the business of the company and were proceeding to Taupo. He approached the corner at a speed of 20-25 m.p.h. and about three feet from a steep bank on the left-hand side. About 20 yards away, he suddenly perceived a car coming in the opposite direction and on the wrong side of the road. Witness said he expected the other car to swing out 1o allow him to pass and so did not alter his course. The other car, however, did not deviate and he perceived that he was trapped and that an accident was inevitable. He had the alternative of turning into the bank, but considered that if he did this the other car would strike him about the driver's seat. Under the circumstances he considered the only thing to do was to allow the cars tomeet head-on. Could Not Be Averted. He braked down as far as he could, but the collision could not be averted. After the acc;dent, another motorist took photograhps of the cars, and these the witness produced. The other car had been travelling at about 25 m.p.h. as it approached — it had not been travelling unduly fast. His eompanion had suffered injuries to his right hand and knee and they had been forced to stay at Taupo for two days before returning to Wellington. He had then been obliged to proceed to Auckland in order to obtain possess'on of another car owned by his company. As a result of the accident Mr. Bunning had been unable to complete work on which he was engaged and and had to return to Wellington. In his opinion the sum of £25 claimed as general damages did not compensate his company for the expenses entailed as a result of the collision. Cross-Examination. In reply to Mr. Hore, witness agreed that h's company might possibly have arranged to have the damaged car railed to Wellington. He admitted that £44 incurred in the expenses was for spare parts and new materials supplied. The damaged parts were wholly replaced by new fittings. Ile estimated that the other car was 60 feet away when he saw it coming. The collision occurred 20 feet from the corner, but it was possible to see about 10 feet round the corner from the spot where he first perceived the other car. He d:d not agree with Mr. Gillies that there was a steep camber on the road at this corner. He first applied his brakes when about 25 feet distant from the other car. He estimated that with the brakes on his car fully applied and travelling at a speed of 20-25 m.p.h. he could pull up in two car lengths. There was loose pumice on the road at the corn ;r but not sufficient to be detrimental to driv'ng. He knew that the witness Gillies had stated that the road was 16 feet wide and that another witness, who had taken measurements, had stated that his (witness') rear wheel was 4ft 6in from the bank. Allowing for the width of his car, he agreed that he wmuld be taking up 10 feet of road, but maintained that his outside wheel had been in the centre of the road. He denied emphaticaliy that he had suggested to two of the occupants of the other .car that it was a "fifty-fifty accident." He adJ mitted that he had "ducked his head and hoped for the best" when he saw that an accident was inevitable, but said that he had not ceased to look where he was going. This, with further evidence taken on comnr'ssion at Eketahuna, clos„d the plaintiff's case. Case for Defendant. Stanley Victor Headland, adjustor of Auckland, stated that he had been driving a car for 17 years. He had inspected the locality of this particular accident about two months after the occurrence, and had reconstructed the accident using measurements supplied to him by an independent w'tness, Mr. Nordloff, who had arrived on the scene shortly after the accident. He had measured the road and found it 15- feet wide. According to measurements he had taken, Rose's car had been occupying 9ft HSin of road. Hobday's car, on the measurements, appeared to be 3ft lOin from the side of the road and Rose's car 4ft 6in. .Both cars appeared to have been slightly on their wrong s'des. The photograph of the cars after the accident appeared to indicate that Hobday had made some effort to regain his correct side of the road, while the lock of the wheels on Rose's car was in the wrong direction. Witness knew the corner well and was of the opinion from the position of the cars that Rose would see Hobday's Ccar first. From the evidence as he had considered it, he was of the opinion that both vehicles had been travelling in the centre of the road. With the brakes fitted to Rose's car, he should have been able to pull up in 25 feet at the speed he was tra- , velling. The camber on the road was 1 very steep and accQrding to h'is mea-

surements it was a drop of 2ft 6in in 15 feet. At this stage the magistrate indicated that he was not prepared to accept this as evidence. This witness had only proceeded to the scene of the accident two months later and knew nothing about the occurren • beyond what he had been told. The court could not accept the deductions of an interested adjuster as evidence. The court was just as competent to draw the necessary deductions as the witness. His Worship's Finding. Mr. Hore indicated that he- would accept his Worship's ruling and put in evidence taken at Auckland frcm the occupants of the defendant's cr,r. Counsel then addressed the court on the subject of damages and closed his case. He submitted that both ( parties were negligent, and their acts being contemporaneous, neither was entitled to recover. "1 have formed a definite view of this case and I do not think that any good purpose would be served by reserving judgment," said his Worship, in summing up. Defendant had reached the corner first and had elected to negotiate it on his wrong side. There was no doubt about this, and it was a i very dangerous and negligent thuig to do — defendant was simply asking for trouble. Defendant was only en- ' titled to judgment if it could be shown that the negligence of the plaintiff had contributed to the accident. It did not appear from the evidence that plaintiff had been gu'lty of any sueh contributory negligence. He had been sufficiently far over for a car to pass him safely and in any case it ; appeared that if Rose had been driv-- ' ing closer to the bank the collision would still have occurred. Rose had been placed in a pos;tion of peril and it could not be said that he- had besn negligent in accepting a head on collision. He was faced with the alter- ! native of striking the bank and then ; probably being struck again by the i other car. Judgment would be for plaintiff for the amount of the repairs : to the car, plus £18 special damages. The sum claimed for depreciation would not be allowed on a point of law.