DAMAGES AWARDED

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 1, Issue 210, 29 April 1932, Page 6

DAMAGES AWARDED

COLLISION CASE ' YERDICT FOR PLAINTIFF IN ACCIDENT CLAIM. MORE CONVINCING STORY. Holding that the plaintiff had made out the more convineing case, Mr. S. L. Paterson, S.M., yesterday found for Dominion Motors, Ltd., on both cla m and counterclaim in an action taken by the plaintiff company to reeover damages from Andrew Davidson Hardie, carrier, of Rotorua. The action arose out of „a motor collision near Rotoma on December 1'6, when a heavy cream lorry driven by G. Hardie came into collision with a three-seater car driven by J. E. Hamilton, an employee of the plaintiff company. Plaintiffs alleged negligence on the pai't of Hardie and on those grounds claimed £il9 11s 6d as.the cost of repairs to the car, with £25 depreciation and £25 general damages. Defendant, on his part, alleged negl'gence against Hamilton, and counterclaim id for £198 4s 5d as damages to his lorry and other losses sustained as a result of the accident. His Worship, after finding for plaintiff, awarded £119 11s 6d damages to cover the cost of repairs to the car, with £10 general damages and costs on the counte-relaim. The case was cpmmenced on Wednesday and concluded yesterday morning. . Mr. I. J. Goldstine (Auckland) appeared for plaintiff company and Mr. J. D. "Davys for defendant. The first w'tness called when the case was rasumed yesterday was Charles Edward Jennings, a earpenter, of Te Aroha, who stated that he was travelling on Hardie's lorry at the time of the accident. Jennings estimated that the lorry was travelling at between 12-15 m.p.h. as it approached the corner and said that Hardie pulled it up in less than its own length. He saw the three-seatm car approaching very fast, and considered that it was its excessive speed . which caused the accident. To Mr. Goldstine, witness said that he considered that the accident was wholly due to the speed of the car, but he admitted he saw no slcid markswhere the car pulled up. Turnied Corner Carefully. Thomas Ninnian Forrest, of Reporoa, another passenger in Hardie 's truck, said that they negotiated the corner very carefully. Hard'e had sounded his horn on all corners and he did so on this one. He first saw th .car about a chain away and considered that it was travelling at an excessive speed. Hardie immediately pulled up the truck, which was stationary when it was struck. Witness said h remembered Hard'e remarking l. Hamilton, "You were hitting it up. raate," and Hamilton replied "I was." He also remembered Hamilton admii ting that his brakes were not good and that Hamilton said something .about wishing that the accident hact happened in a different place. Cross-examined, the witness sa':that when the car came to rest, its front inside wheel was only about 18 inches from the bank. He admitto:« that this would mean that thi outsi > ■ wheel would be only about 7 fe"from the bank. Questioned regai l ing the speed of the car, the witness said he saw no skid marks or scarring on the road, althought he st'll mai tained that the speed of the car waexeessive. William Hardie, junior, a brothrof the defendant, who was also a pa s senger in the truck, corroborated th previous witnesses in their account. • of the accident. He said he wasitting in the back of the truck avr that the car struck the truck with a very severe impact. He also hearo some conversation between Hardie and Hamilton, in which Hamilton admitted he had been travelling fast Evidence of Damagei. Sydney Morgan Kingsland, motor body buiider, of Rotorua, said that he had repaired Hard'e's truck after thaccident. He considered that it musi have received a severe jolt, as tffibody was forced away from the cab on the driver's side. The whole body was strained_and there were break ■ ages in the body pillars. The damage was not very apparent outside. Ke was definite that the damage was caused by an accident and not by ordinary wear and tear. In reply to the magistrate, the witness sa d that the truck was no' brought in for repairs until about December 17, although he examined i on December 12. He considered thai the truck was unsafe for regular use although it might have been used on short trips. A motor mechanic, Charles William Green, who effected repairs to thc " truck, said he was satisfied the da mage was caused by an accident. "Fix Him Up." k The wife of the defendant, Catherine Hardie, said that on the day fol.lowing the accident Hamilton telephoned from Auckland asking for her husband. When told he was not in. Hamilton told her to tell her husband that the car was not insured and to ask him to accept the blame, saying that he "would fix him up next timi he was in Rotorua." He also ask;d her not to indicate to Dominion Motors that he had telephoned. An explanation in relation to cer- ' tain of the accounts was given by Henry Langguth, garage proporietor. of Rotorua, who hired Hardie's trucks to carry on his cream contract wiri? his own machine was be'ng repaired This closed defendant's case, and after hearing legal argument from counsel, the magistrate delivered judgment.

Reviewing the facts, his Worship pointed out that the points of law depended entirely upon the releva r facts brought out. That being so, hr had first to decide which set of w'fcnesses were the most reliable. It appeared to him that the plaintiff's wifc "nesses had told the more convineing story — there was corroboration or important details by three mdepend.ent witnesses, Messrs. Pettit Ballantyne and Bach, and in their evi ' dence was one cogent reason for aecepting the evidence of plaintiff From his own knowledge of the corner and also from the evidence of the witnesses, he was of the opinion thai there was ample room for the car Lc have passed 'f the lorry had been or its right side. He was forced to th( conclusion that the lorry had beer on its incorrect side, and that this

was the dominant cause of the accilert. He also could not accept the varying accounts of the speed of the nlaintiff's car given by the defendant's witnesses. Their est'mates varied from 30 to 45 m.p.h., but if fchese estimates were correct no one on the lorry would have been left alive. He was of the opinion that the Car had been approaching the corner at a reasonable rate of speed and judgment would be for the plam- ! iiff on the clairn and for costs on the counterclaim. Judgment would be for the amount of damage to the car, £119 11s 6d, together with £10 general damages. |