COLLISION AT WAIWAKAIHO.

Taranaki Daily News, 16 December 1919, Page 6

COLLISION AT WAIWAKAIHO.

COLSON v. WOOLDRIDGE CLAIM FOR £IOOO DAMAGES. JURY FAIL TO AGREE. The claim by Ingram A, Colson (Mr. A. 11. Johnstone, with him Mr. C IT. Croker) auainst Ebo.nezer Wooldridge (Mr. A. A." Bennett) for £IOOO damages for injuries alleged to have been caused by one of plaintiff's drivers colliding with his motor car against plaintiff on the Waiwakaiho bridge on March 19 last, was continued in the Supreme Court yesterday morning, before liis Honor "the Chief Justice, Sir Robert Stout, and a common jury of twelve, of which Mr. A. McHardy was the foreman. . EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENCE.

Leo. Walsh, recalled by Mr. Bennett, said that on coming to the bridge lie Blowed up on account of the depression at the entrance, of which he was aware. He also had a look to see that nothing was coming on to the bridge from the other way. To Mr. Johnstone: He made a statement (which he signed) to the police a day or two after the accident, but had not said anything about a bump in the road or slowing down. To the Judge: He did not suggest that plaintiff was not on the bridge when he went over it, but he did not remember seeing anyone.

His Honor: Do you say that it was possible for all to have happened that has been said, and for you, sitting on the right-hand side of the car and keeping a look out, not to be aware of it? Witness: It was possible. LADY PASSENGER'S STORY. Eveline Meads, waitress, employed at the Royal Hotel, New Plymouth, deposed to being in the front seat of the car with Walsh, the driver, on the niglit of the accident. She saw nothing of » horseman on the bridge, and they did not run into anything on the bridge. The car went over the bridge in the centre of the roadway as far as she conld tell.

To Mr. Johnstone: The car lights were showing brightly, and there was no difficulty in seeing the road. Shortly after the accident she went to Nelson, anil was interviewed there by the police. She had a conversation with Walsh about the accident, after Mr. Colson had been to the garage, on the night of the accident. She went to Nelson the next day. The statement she made to the police at. Nelson was signed on April 2nd. She could give no explanation of how the accident happened. RECLINING IN BACK SEAT. Wm. Patrick Kelleher, customshouso clerk, Wellington (formerly of New Plymouth) said he was a passenger in the car on the night in question, but knew nothing of anything in the nature of an accident. He thought the speed going | over the bridge would be about fifteen miles an hour. He was certain that the car was not over on the right-hand side of the bridge. To tho Judge: He thought the car would be about 15 feet from the righthand parapet. This reply prompted his Honor to remark that as the car was said to be about 8 feet wide, and the average width of the bridge was 20 feet ,lin., the car would, in consequence, if witness was right, be over the parapet on the other side.

The witness replied that he believed the car had taken the centre of the roadway. ( Continuing the examination, Mr. Bennett elicited that so far as witness knew the average speed of the journey was about 20 miles. To Mr. Johnstone: He was reclining in the back seat of the car with Father Kelly. They had rugs over them, but his head was not down below the side of the body of the car. He noticed something rattling at the back of the car soon after they got off the asphalt. He saw, when at Waitara, that the hood stay of the car was broken, but he did not think it strange that a piece of bracket such as that produced, had been found on the bridge that night. He saw nothing of a car on the bridge when returning from Waitara. There was a car standing on the left-hand side of tho road at the Waitara end of the bridge. | There were some people at the other | end of the bridge. Counsel pointed out that if the piece of bracket produced was broken from defendant's car on the night of the accident, witness' head must have been quite close to it, but witness said he would not be surprised to learn that it had been broken off without his knowledge. He admitted his position in the .car was not a good one for observation purposes. INDEPENDENT TESTIMONY. George Gibson, motor garage proprietor, New Plymouth, said he had been over the Waiwakaiho bridge many times. He gave evidence as to the condition of the roadway at the entrance to the bridge, and the effect of the bump in the road on passengers in a car. He thought if a car went over that depression in the road at a terrific speed a pig net would be needed to keep passengers in the back seat from being tossed out. In reply to his Honor, witness said that anyone coming on to the bridge from the Waitara end would not be able to 6ee a car -oming towards the bridge 300 yards away. The Judge remarked that he had visited the locality and thought witness ' was quite wrong, and he would ask the jury to view the locality also.

Cross-examined by Mr. Johnston?, witness said lie believed at tlio time of tlic accident the best entrance to the bridge was about the centre r>s the roadway. He would not swear that it was the practice of the drivers to go more to the right-hand side of the road in order to get a smooth entrance. He could not say that an accident on that bridge at night would necessarily be due to a driver not keeping a good look out. He had recently been over the bridge at night in company with Mr. Croker. He noticed the bridge was well lighted up, and that the parapet showed up very distinctly. Eeginald Day, chief inspector for the Borough of New Plymouth, deposed to the condition of the road at the enI trance to the bridge a short time before the accident. He also said that he had never had occasion to complain to Mr. Wooldridge about Walsh as a taxidriver. . Cross-examined by Mr. Johnstone, witness gave it as his opinion t/ie best, entrance to the Waiwa'caiho bridge from the New Plymouth, end was on the left-hand side. Hr considered the bridge was one which drivers should exercise great catirrVm in coming over at ! night. He hnr, bad occasion to com[plaia to defendant about W&Uh. but

not as to speed or driving on the wrong side of the road.

Constable Hadler deposed to visiting the scene of the accident, on the morning after it occurred. He. discovered a grey sock, saturated with blood, on the right-hand fide of 1 lie roadway irear the New Plymouth end of the bridge. There were also what appeared to be other blood marks oil the roadway. On the southern parapet of the bridge he noticed some horsehair about a third of. the way along from the New Plymouth end. This concluded the evidence. COUNSELS' ADDRESSES. In the course of his address Mr. Bennett said there was no direct proof that defendant's driver had been responsible for the accident. No specific act of negligence had been proved. He also pointed out there was a discrepancy between the evidence of plaintiff and one of his own witnesses in regard to the speed of the car and its position on the bridge at the time of the accident as alleged. He submitted that what had happened was that plaintiff had got hold of the wrong car, and that it was not VVooldridge's car at all that had caused tho injury. He pointed out that had the driver been guilty of causing the injury he would scarcely have come back again over the same bridge within a short time, with his damaged car tied up with cord, and have gone straight to the garage and remained there for a considerable time. He would have been more likely to have stayed away with his car all night, and have got a new bracket on before returning home. In the matter of damages, if any, he urged that they should be reasonable and not vindictive.

Mr. Johnstone said the facts of the case were simple. There could be no doubt but that the injury to plaintiff was caused by a motor far. He had to admit that much of the evidence was circumstantial, but the facts were indisputable, and the evidence was sufficient to show that it was defendant's car that had caused the accident. The accident was not compatible with any other explanation. The loss of part of the hood bracket was something which defendant had not been able to explain satisfactorily. He submitted that neglect on the "part of ,the driver had been established and in view of that it became necessary for defendant to bring proof to the contrary, which had not been done. THE SUMMING UP.

In summinrr up. his Honor said the simple questions were, was the plaintiff damaged, and that was not disputed? iiow was lie damaged? and who caused the damage? If the jury believed the story of plaintiff they could not come to any. other conclusion than that the injury Was caused by a motor car and that the car was defendant's. It was perfectly clear that no other car passed plaintitf on his way home that night. The car admittedly left town for Wflitara at about nine o'clock in the evening, and according to Oolson's evidence the car would be on the bridge at the time the accident happened. With the additional evidence of the broken hood stay, and the piece picked up on the bridge just where the accident took place, it seemed to him to be conclusive as to whose car caused the damage. His Honor then dealt with ihe question of negligence. Firstly, on the speed issue, atid pointed out that on defendant's own admission the car had travelled 10 miles in 20 minutes, which was equal to an average of 30 miles per hour. Taking into consideration the pulling up for bumps and crossing bridges, he asked, what must have been the speed at other places? In regard to the position of the car on the bridge the evidence was all in the direction of showing that the occurrence tool; place right on the righthand side of the bridge. Lastly, as to the obligation nf the driver to keep a ! good look out he said that without regard to speed it was the duty of a driver to keep a good look out for anything else on the road, and failure to do so constituted neglect. He reviewed the evidence in Tegarrl to visibility on the bridge and also as to the driver of the car seeing nothing on the bridge. His Honor then dealt with the question of damages, and directed the jury that in the event of their finding for plaintiff they should award such damages as they thought, having regard to the injuries sustained by plaintiff and the expenses attaching thereto, and the amount of loss of earning ability through im-i..mutation. JURY DISAGREES. The jury retired at 12.30 p.m. At 2.50 they expressed a wish to view the I scene of the accident, from which they returned at 3.50. At 4.30 they returned and reported they were unable to agree, and they were dismissed, his Honor thanking them for their services. NEW TRIAL GRANTED.

Mr. Johnstone applied for a new trial which was granted. The question of whether a change of venue would be applied for was reserved.