MOTOR CAR COLLISION.

Taranaki Daily News, 5 November 1919, Page 6

MOTOR CAR COLLISION.

the bank. The sun did not affect witness' view of the two cars. In witness' opinion Cattley took full possession of the road and cut the corner too sharpJtrNCTIOX ROAD OCCURRENCE. |

John Robertson Archibald, one of the plaintiffs, deposed that lie came up to the scone of the accident a few minutes after the occurrence. From the wheel marks on the road he thought Lawson would have struck the other car even if lie had kept to his proper side. In regard to the ownership of the car, witness said it had been taken over by them from Mr. Baker in part payment for some land. It was valued at £350. There was a mortgage on it for £2lO to Mrs Rundle. He lmd not signed an undertaking in regard to Mr. Baker's responsibilities on the ear. To Mr. Bennett: He had made no definite arrangement to hand the ear back to Baker on that Saturday afternoon. He thought the same onus was on Cattley as on Lawson to sound his horn when approaching the corner. Witness denied that Lawson was dismissed by him for furious driving. Albert Lewis Triggs, laborer, Inglewood, who was a passenger in Archibald's car on the dav of the accident, and Alfred John Haldane, a post office employee, another passenger, gave corroborative evidence. At this stage the hearing was adjourned till 2 p.m. to-day.

ACTION FOR DAMAGES. In the Magistrate's Court yesterday, before Mr. T. A. B. Bailey, S.M, Archibald Bros., motor 'bus proprietors, Inglewood (for whom Mr. H. R. Billing appeared), sued George Gibson, motor garage proprietor, New Plymouth (for whom Mr. A. A. Bennett appeared) for £lB7 for damage to a motor ear resulting from a collision on the Junction road on August 23 last, near the corner of Alfred road, Egmont Village. The claim was for £125 as damages and £O2 for loss of earnings. Defendant counter claimed for the sum of £207 lis Id. Both claims were heard together. Mr. Billing stated that tlie plaintiff's car was being driven by a man named Lawson, a servant of Archibald Bros, from New Plymouth to Inglewood, and the other car was coming in the opposite direction, and was driven by a man pamed Cattley, employed by defendant. Photographs showing the locality and the position of the cars were put in by Mr. Billing, to show that there was ample the road for the two cars to pass. On account of the bank at the spot the plaintiff, coming froin New Plymouth, could not get a view of the road until near the corner, and neither would defendant, as he would be coming up "a rise. When the cars came into v;ew they were about two chains apart, defendant's car being on his wrong side. They continued in their respective directions; until within about 18 yards of each other. There were five passengers in each of the cars. Plaintiff realised that if he continued on be would collide with the other car with the chance of his Car going over the bank at the locality. Realising the position, plaintiff pulled out his car on to the middle of the road, at the same time applying his brakes with a view to minimising the result of what appeared to be an inevitable collision. At the same time defendant swerved over to his proper side and the collision resulted. He submitted that even though it might be claimed that plaintiff -should have kept on his right side, and he would then have avoided the collision, the original negligence of defendant in coming along on his wrong side was responsible for the collision, as the evidence would go to show that there would have been a collision even if plaintiff had continued along on his right side. There was not any question of excessive speed. He thought both cars were travelling at about £0 miies an hour-

Menzie T. Archibald, motor proprietor, Inglewood, gave evidence on the lines of counsel's opening remarks. Plaintiffs' car had no hood up, but defendant's had. The front of defendant's car struck the fore part of plaintiff's car on the lefthand side and carried it over on to the bank on the opposite side of the road. A small photograph taken the following taorning, was put in, showing the posi" tion of plaintiff's car after the accident. The defendant's car was removed the same evening after the accident. Witness said he would have done the same as Lftwaon did if he had been driving the car. He did not think defendant, would have avoided a collision even if he had kept right on along the wrong side of the road. Particulars of the damage done to plaintiff's car and the cost of rePfeirs were put in, in the following amounts: Newton King £l9 8s 9d, Smart Bros. £l7 \ss sd, Wilson £ls Is Bd, plaintiff's own work on car £ls ss, and £ls the cost of a new radiator. The repairs were necessary on account of the accident. The car was considerably "sprung" after the accident and would not be in fts good condition generally as before the occurrence. The balance of the amount of the claim was for loss of earnings. The car had not yet been used again since the accident as the new radiator had not come to hand until a day or two ago. The car was worth about £2 10s per day to them, less the cost of running and depreciation.

To 'Mr. Bennett: The car was secondhand when witness took it over as part ■of an exchange transaction. Witness admitted that in consequence of complaints as to the non-payments of mortgage instalments, th n mortgagee had arranged to take the car back* again, and delivery was to be given on the Saturday the accident occurred. Plaintiffs took the car over in May last but had not used ii until the day the accident happened. If it had been handed over to the mortgagee on that day they would, of course, have earned nothing- with it since that day The car was running well on the Saturday they brought it into New Plymouth. Baker from whom they took the car over, had never stipulated to witness that Lawson should not be allowed to drive the car. When plaintiff's car was swerved across the road it would be travelling at about 12 miles an hour. Even if the brakes had been put hard on and plaintiff's car had been swerved further to the left, witness was of opijilon he could not have avoided striking defendants car. If defendant's driver had not seen witness' car until the mo- ! ment that he diverted, then witness 1 thought he should not be driving n 1 wonld T , W ! tne3a admitted the sun i would be shining )n Cattley's eyes Lawson did not sound his horn when lie j saw the other cafc coming*. ' Constable Longbottom, Inglewood I IocIVJ' aS t0 ?oinfr out to th( ' locality of the accident at the requesi an< ? ° bservi7l " {he wheel an 4 measurements. Both drivers agreed that the b marks were those of their cars Trom the marks he saw, he formed the opinion that plaintiff's car would noi have been able to pass without colliding with defendant's, even though the for" mer had kept to his proper side. To Mr. Bennett: From his observe "m in goinc out in a car with Archibald. he would sav that the rays of tlm sun would have been right on'Cattlev'i windscreen at the time of the accident •tnd he remarked to Archibald that if the sun was like that there was no wo n . vr the acicdent happened. Witness 'ould not see a horse and dray 20 yards thond of the car he was in. Plans were nut in bv Mr Bennett, nrawn by Mr. Lysons, showing tlfe positions of the cars. etc.. from'data suonlied bv Constable Longbottom, who tliat t ' l " appeared accurate. Thomas Schrp>'der. farmer. Albert Road, who was drivin? from TnglcwooA nnd saw the collision, deposed that Cntt■P\ nnssed him and continued to drive "n right on the right hand side of the 'ond. Lawson was drivin? down on his left hand side of the road. ' Cattley stunk to the right hand side of the road right un to the corner, when "he shot over to the other side. Archibald's car kept to its course almost until the point of the.-collision when it swerved slights to the right. Tf Archibald's had not Served he thought the collision would have been much worse, and the car would Mobuhlr bare goat over