A MOTOR COLLISION.

Taranaki Daily News, 27 March 1922, Page 6

A MOTOR COLLISION.

AN OPUNAKE CASiE LIABILITY OF COUNTY COUNCIL. \ Tn the Magistrate’s Court, New Plymouth, on Saturday morning, the case of Snelling and Andrews, garage proprietors, versus Charles R. Pease and the Egmont County Council, was concluded. The plaintiff’s claim was for £9S 5s 6d, for damages sustained in respect of a collision on September 5 between a mail ’bus owned by them and the county motor car, which was being driven by Pease,, who was at that time county engineer. His Worship (Mr. A. M. Mowlem) heard legal argument as to the question of the council’s liability. Mr. T. P. Anderson, for plaintiffs, replied to the argument on the non-suit point raised by Mr. Bennett on behalf of the county council, and he referred to the authority of Mr. ’Justice Salmond, that a master was exempt when a servant is exclusively on his own business. Counsel cited a number of cases to support the contention that Pease was acting within the scope of his employment. Mr. Bennett submitted that at the close of plaintiff’s ease there was do prime facie case to prove that Pease was acting within the course of his employment. Counsel drew attention to the evidence that Pease had taken drink, and if such were the case he had put himself in an unfit state to carry out his duties.

His Worship said there had been suggestions regarding Pease’s condition but he hardly thought the evidence had gone far enough.

Continuing, counsel said the position for the council could also be put in another way: Was the act of Pease in going back to the shed within the control of the council ? The mere fact that in the hotel Pease met a man and discussed county business did not put him back in the county’s employment. His Worship: Had he ever left it?

Mr. Bennett thought it was no part of Pease’s duty to the council to go into the hotel to see the contractor unless it was for his own convenience. The duty which Pease had to perform in taking the car to the shed was just as much a duty to himself as to the council. If it should be held that it was his duty to take the car to the shed then that duty should have been performed immediately on finishing the county’s business, whereas the evidence was that he had waited round the hotel.

The grounds of defence were suriamarised by Mr. Bennett as follows: (1) That Pease was a bailee, and that the county was not liable at law. (2) Pease was an independent contractor; (a) it was-a case of a public body executing a public work. (3) Even if Pease was negligent his act must have been in the course of his employment before the county could be liable. (4) Compensation cases were relevant in deciding the present issue. As to general damages, counsel thought the only claim plaintiffs could make under this heading was a small allowance in respect to benzine and depreciation when two cars were used for part of the journey. Mr. Bennett asked if His 'Worship would give his decision in writing. His Worship said he had made up his mind at the moment. In deference to the work counsel had put into the case, however, he would accede to the request. There did not appear to be any doubt that the accident was due to Pease’s negligence in driving the car. Nothing had been said in the way of excusing him on the consequences of his action. It appeared that the whole of the circumstances were against Pease. He had been negligent, even grossly negligent. His Worship accepted in its entirety tJie evidence given by Mrs. Holmes and Mr. Fever, and accepting that it was perfectly plain that defendant was the occasion of the difficulty and trouble which occurred at the corner. As against Pease there could be no question that judgment must be given. Even presuming that the defence he raised that the ’bus was travelling towards him at an excessive speed were correct it was answered by two contentions, the first being that knowing this he should have taken greater care, and the evidence showed he took no care at all. The second answer was contained in the legal decision of Mr. Justice Hosking, quoted during the earlier part of the, case. Judgment would be against Pease for such sum as was allowed after consideration. As against the defendant county His Worship said he would take time to consider the authorities quoted. In the meantime judgment would not be entered against any party.