COLLISION SEQUEL

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 2, Issue 569, 28 June 1933, Page 3

COLLISION SEQUEL

TE WHAITI INCIDENT DIRjECT CONFLICT OF . EVIDENCE IN CASE. VERDICT FOR PLAINTIFF. There was a direct conflict of evidence in a case which was a sequel to a collision in September on the Te Wha.ti-Rotorua Road, when Goodsons Ltd took action against T. Anderson. Mr. M. H. Hampson appeared for ■Goodsons Ltd., and Mr. I. J. Goldstine, and with him Mr. R. A. Potter, appeared for "Anderson. After a voluminous total of evidence had been adduced, a verdict was given for plaintiff and Mr. Goldstinelodged notice of appeal. Lancelot Leonard Dornbush, driver for Goodsons Ltd., said he was driving a lorry on the Te Whaiti Road when at the 52 mile-peg he saw d-e-fendant 60 feet away and travelled some 20 feet before he stopped. His pace w.as 18 m.p.h. and he was going down hill. Immediately b'efore the impact his left-hand wheel was on the grass edge. The lorry was 6ft 6in wide and the road 15 or 16 feet wide. There was ample room for defendant's car to pass. Witness had sounded his hom as he came to the bend, as he did at -every eorner, because it was a • dangerous gorge. His lorry was still moving at the time of impact. The lorry was hit on the hub of the right front wheel. The fender, lamp and bumper of the car took the force of the impact. The force of the collision slewed the back of the lorry toward the bank. The tail of the lorry was 6 feet from the bank after, the accident. His maximum speed was 33 m.p.b. To Mr. I. J. Goldstine witness said that he had driven a lorry for six years without any accident. It was a heavy lorry, a ten-wheeler. This was the only occasion he had gons. for a load of tim'ber on a Sunday. The day was drizzly and it had been showery all the night. There was a clay surface on top of the metal, but he did not know if there was clay between the metal and the banks. Prior to approaching the bend he sounded his horn and his wheels were on the metal. His right-hand wheels were on the middle of the road and the road was hanked towards the inside. When he first saw defendant's car he was 6 feet from the bank and 2 feet on his wrong side of the centre of the ro«ad. Witness janrmed his brakes on hard when he saw defendant's car. It was a new truclc and the brakes were in perfect order. At the time of the impact witness's lorry was not quite straight and the rear would have been about 6 feet from the bank. He admitted that he only left 6 feet for a car to go through, but prior to the impact it would have been 8 feet from the bank. McPherson said nothing to him about measurements and pointed out absolutely nothing. Witness did not deny that the tracks of bloth vehicles were perfectly clear, but he would deny Constable McPherson's statement that the tail of his truck was only 1 foot from the bank. He would also deny that Contable McPherson had traced his tracks on his wrong side for some distance back towards Rotorua, or that he had drawn a plan on the spot. After the impact the car honnced back and the bumper scored the bank. The other car made no attempt to tuni. The lorry's headlamp was not damaged but the bumper and fender were. His truck was a straight-line and was not in any way inclined and his wheels were in line. He denied that he was on his' incorrect side and attempted to swing over. D. M. Ford, traffic inspector, Stated that he got Dornbush and Anderson to show the positions of their cars. There was a distance of 60 feet between the points where they saw one another. The lorry's was 22ft from the point of impact and the car's 38ft. The marks were well discernible and the road usable was 15 feet wide. The left ■ front wheel of the lorry was off the . metal and on the grass and the back right wheel 6ft from. the bank. The lorry's track showed that it had left ample room for a car to pass. To Mr. Goldstine: The lorry should • not have been on the road for timber, ! this being an offence under the Police j Offences Act. Lorries with an overload had to obtain permission to use the road. The lorry was quite definitely on an incline across the road and had been pushed over about 2 ft. ] The lorry was hit behind ihe bumper and rnust have been on an incline when struck. Witness denied that there were any gaugq marks on the bank where the car had been pushed back and he would contradict any witness who could he brought to say there was one.

Fredericlc Goodson, director o± the plaintiff company, aecompanied Mr. Ford when the measurements" were made and they were unchallenged. The total damage was £31 7s, but his company was claiming a further £12 Os lld for expenses and also £12 for loss of truck for three days, which was a very low estimate. To Mr. Goldstine witness could notsay how his costs were made up; they were made on mileage. He endeavoured to make £4 a day from the truck. A truck was no good to him if it did not do so. He did not make a practice of running on Sunday. Charles Robin McKenzie Goodson corroborated his father's evidence. Defendant's Story. Thomas Anderson) defendant, said ' that he was coming from Ruatahuna to Murupara in the Sunday in question. It was drizzling at the time of the accident and continued to rain afterwards. He had ibeen driving a car for four years and had the car he Was driving for two years. He was only travelling at 20 m.p.h. because of the^ bending, greasy road. He _ slowed" down at- the bend and blew his horn, whicR was a loud one. He was well .on his own side of the road and his left-hand wheels would be at the edge of the metal. On the left of the metal was clay, &• watertable and a high bank. The clay was greasy owing to the rain and unsafe to travel on. He saw the lorry coming and it was absolutely, on its wrong side but witness could not estimate the speed. All that witness could do was to put on his brakes, which he did. His car stopped in a length. The lorry- tried (Continued on Page 7.)