CARRIERS AT LAW

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 832, 28 November 1929, Page 11

CARRIERS AT LAW

GOODS DAMAGED THROUGH ACCIDENT DRIVER’S RESPONSIBILITY Defendant being unable to offer any explanation of an accident that damaged goods he was carrying on his motor-truck for plaintiff, judgment was given against him by Mr. H. C. Cutten, S.M., at the Magistrate’s Court this morning. L. G. Abel (Mr. Thwaites) proceeded against Robert Dickens (Mr. Bennett), claiming £72 5s 9d damages. In his judgment the magistrate said that both parties to the action were carriers. Plaintiff had employed defendant to carry part of a quantity of goods to Cambridge, and both men had set off from Auckland together. The journey was taken at night and, between Mercer and Rangiriri, defendant, instead of following a curve in the road, had driven over a bank into several feet of water, causing the damage claimed to the goods. The only explanation offered for the accident was that the lorry was being driven with tyres of varying pressures on account of an interchange of a front and back tyre. That, however, was a fact known to defendant and ha should have been prepared to meet any difficulty it might have caused. • “It appears to me that the only explanation is that defendant became sleepy and drove carelessly,” said the magistrate. “If he was too tired to drive he should not have been doing so and he must take the responsibility.”

Judgment was for plaintiff for the full amount of the claim.