TWO CARS COLLIDE.

Taranaki Daily News, 20 August 1921, Page 7

TWO CARS COLLIDE.

CLAIM FOR £2OO DAMAGES. ACCIDENT AT EGMONT VILLAGE. VERDICT FOR PLAINTIFF. The circumstances of a collision between two motor cars at Egmont Village in January of this year were recalled in the Supreme Court, New Plymouth, yesterday, when an action for damages was heard. The plaintiff, William Campbell (of Kilbirnie, Wellington), claimed the sum of £2OO from John Poletti (Bell Block), alleging that Poletti was negligent in driving. The statement of claim was made up as follows:—Repairs to car, £96 13s 6d; hire of taxi to return to Dawson Falls, £6 10s; car to Eltham, £3 Is 6d; train fare to Wellington and car hire, £6 8s 6d; medical expenses, £l4 17s 6d; nursing fees, £l5 15s; general damages, £56 14s 2d. Poletti coun-ter-claimed for £134 9s 2d, alleging that Campbell was negligent. The clhim was made up of: Repairs to car, £10.3 2s 8d; towing and car hire, £6 6s 6d; general damages, £25. •Mr. C. A. Treadwell (Wellington) appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. R. H. Quilliam for defendant.

The following jury was empanelled:— Messrs. W. H. Cook, A. Prestney, H. R. Boswell, and Wm. George. Plaintiff’s case was stated by Mr. Treadwell as follows:—On January 25, Campbell was proceeding from Dawson’s Falls to New Plymouth at. about twenty miles an hour. When lie arrived in the vicinity of where the main road junctioned with the Hillsborough road he was driving along comfortably and his machine was practically abreast of/the far corner when Poletti’s car, coming at a speed which could only be estimated as appalling, and on the wrong side of the road, dashed straight into Campbell’s car. The side of the chassis was smashed in, and the front of the car was also smashed. It was contended that if Poletti had been driving at a reasonable speed he could have turned his car and gone in behind Campbell’s car, or he could have swerved to the left and gone towards Inglewood. ACCIDENT DESCRIBED. The car owned by Campbell was a heavy one, being about 1J tons, while Poletti <3 was somewhat lighter. The effect of the collision was that Campbell's car was driven sideways until it was brought up in the gutter, about ten yards past the corner. There were five occupants of plaintiff’s car: Campbell (driving),, his wife (sitting on the left). Mrs. Ulegman, Mrs. (Dr.) Gibbs, Miss Gibbs, and Jack Campbell. The effect of the crash was to throw them in all directions. Mrs. Campbell am) the boy were hurled right out of the car and on to a bank about 8 feet high on the side of the road. Mrs. Clegman, who was eighty years of age, was also thrown out, and was rendered unconscious. Mr. Campbell was the only one who was not thrown out, as he remained wedged in some manner between the wheel and the seat. After the accident Mrs. Campbell said to Poletti: “How dare you drive on the main road at such a terrible speed. No one has a chance against a man like you.” Poletti replied: “I thought I had killed the old lady.” Counsel suggested that this expression was one which no man would have made if he thought Campbell w'as responsible for the accident. As to the law, he thought that Poletti being on the side road it behoved him to give way to ail vehicles on the main road.

e x Plaintiff, in evidence, said that he did _ not see Poletti coming; the first intimation he had was his wife saying, “Oh, Will,” and then he saw her being hurled through e the air. He intended to go to the moun- „ tain house, but could not find the road. I They found out afterwards that the signpost was down. Mrs. Campbell, who was the first to see defendant coming, said Poletti could have passed behind them had he been on his right side. She did not think it was possible for her husband to have avoided the accident. Poletti’s car seemed to be leaping at them, and the thought occurred to her that he must have touched the accelerator. Other evidence was given on behalf of plaintiff by Mrs. Jeanne Hurlstone and Harvie Baily, garage foreman, Inglewood. : CASE FOR THE DEFENCE. For the defence, Mr. Quilliam contended • that both cars were travelling in the middle of the respective roads. He could not understand Campbell’s evidence that he • did not see Poletti till the moment of impact, as the view at the corner was all right, and if the evidence in this connection was to be of any importance he thought arrangements might be made for the jury to see the locality. There was no obstruction there, however, byt Campbell, as a stranger in the district, should have been particularly careful. There’ was no rule that a vehicle on a side road had to give way to vehicles on the main road. It was for each party to exercise proper care, having regard to circumstances. The duty was. on both to take good precautions. Not even on the evidence as adduced had it been suggested that plaintiff took due care. Obviously he was not watching out, and was travelling too fast. Had he exercised care he could have seen Poletti’s car in time to do a number of things which would avoid an accident. A plan of the corner was explained by L. C. Sladflen, surveyor, who said it ' was possible to see forty yards down the • Hillsborough road when 80 yards on the ! Inglewood side. . In reply to His Honor: When approaching it was not very obvious that there was a cross road. Defendant said he was going at about ten miles an hour at the time of the collision, having applied his brakdL It was not possible for him to avoid Campbell’s car. After the mishap Mrs. Campbell said she thought witness and her husband were both to blame. He denied using the , words attributed to him about the old j lady. Under cross-examination defendant said he was on his way to the mountain house. He had had a puncture, but was not trying to make up time. The wife of defendant, Isabel Poletti, said she remembered noticing her husband ,put his hand on the brake before coming to the junction of the roads; she looked up and saw the other car coming, but could not remember the distance between ! them at that time. They were going about I twenty-five miles an hour. Her husband i was a careful driver; other cars always | passed them on the road. In regard to the I collision, she thought both cars would be ■ in the middle of the road at the time of the J impact. By that time her husband had , I reduced pace considerably. Witness was , ' thrown out by the impact. Her idea of the ! accident was that if Campbell had put his brakes on there would have been no acci- ; I dent. I Other witnesses for defendent were Victor Hurlstone, storekeeper, Egmont Vil- ’ i lage; W. R. Stephens, garage foreman, New | Plymouth; John Flay, farmer,

JUDGE SUMS UP. Summing up, His Honor said the case was a comparatively easy one, and he did not think it would present any serious difficulty to the jury. Two cars had collided in daylight at cross roads, and each driver, as was not uncommon, blamed the other. The jury might decide that it was the fault of one or the other, or of both. If they thought that both were negligent, the man who was liable was the man who had the last opportunity of avoiding the accident. There was also the fact that one of the parties was coming along a side road. A man driving out of a side road on to a main road was subject to a special duty of care, and was bound to take the precaution that a man driving on the main road would not be expected to take. It was, therefore, a material circumstance in this instance that Poletti was on the side road, and' that Campbell was proceeding along a main route. Reviewing the evidence of negligence against both parties, His Honor said it seemed that the only evidence of negligence which could be brought against Campbell would be that he did not keep a proper look-out for traffic on the Egmont Road. It was fairly obvious that he could have seen if be looked, and it was clear that he had not looked. It had to be borne in mind, however, .that he was a stranger, and did not know the road was there. Supposing he ought to have seen the car? He was driving along on his correct side, at a moderate pace, and should he stop or go on? His Honor said he thought a reasonable driver would keep on. He did not mean to infer that a driver approaching a side road must not keep a look-out, but where it was a question of who was to give way a reasonable rule would be that the man on the side road should do so, pnd not the driver in the line of traffic. The suggestion had been made that Poletti should have avoided the accident, and there was a good deal of force in this, opinion. The jury retired at 4.10 and returned at. 5.50 p.m. with a verdict in favor of plaintiff, and allowed him £122 2s 4d, costs incurred, and £lO 10s general damages, a total of £132 12s 4d. Judgment was accordingly entered for this amount, and also for costs and disbursements.