MOTOR COLLISION.

Taranaki Daily News, 19 August 1922, Page 7

MOTOR COLLISION.

V OCCIDENT NEAR UREN’' T CLAIM FOR DAMAGES ~ CASE IN SUPREME COURT. The sittings of the Supreme Court at New Plymouth were continued yesterday morning, before His Honor Mr. Justice Chapman and a jury, when the claim of Eleanor May Crofts* for £lOBO 4s from Charles H. Johnston, of Waitara, for damages asq the result of a motor Ecdlision was taken. The following jurv was emp^npiled • Messrs. C. Waterston. W. J. Scoble, T. H. Bates. J. Beckett, S. F. Burgess. J. E. Avery, & Haldane. C. Westbury. H. Sinclair, L. A. Boe worth. W.’ P. Okey E- C.fKing. Mr. Waterston was

Mr. J. C. Nicholson, with Mr. R. H. Quilliam. appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. I*. O'Dea for defendant. .• The plaintiff. Jn her _ statement of claim, alleged that the defendant by his servant so negligently drove and managed a motor lorry on the Main North Road in Clifton County that it collided with a motor car belonging to and driven by Alfred Roger Greenwood, and in which. she was a passenger. By reaeon <ff the alleged negligence of defendant's •errant the plaintiff claimed that she had •offered serious bodily injury and sustained the following damages:—Hospital expenses £44 Ils, medical expenses £25 3a, value of coat and skirt ruined £lO IQs, and general damages £lOOO. a total v of £lOBO 4s. The plaintiff therefore claimed this amount, together with the oof**; of and incidental to the present •ction, and such other relief as the .£ourt saw fit. SCENE OF THE. ACCIDENT. Ixrais Coster Sladden. engineer and ■wrvpyor, New Plymouth, stated that he bad inspected the portion of the road at the scene of the accident. The metal portion was not quite in the centre, and from the junction of the Turan zi road it was perfectly level and nearly straight for about IS chains. On the inland side there was a side track, and for a portion of the way it was easy to get on to the side track, but for the remaining portion it was somewhat lower than the crown of the road. On the seaward side there was a grass slope with a low bank here and there. Proceeding on the action of the wheele of a turning car, witness stated that in leaving the straight the back wheels would leave at the eame time as the front ones and would describe an arc of a greater radius. They Would leave before they reached the point where the front ones left. To Mr. O’Dea: Except for a small portion he did not think a car could get more than about five feet over the grass •lope on account of the tussocks and hillocks. There was a takeaway off the metal road on to the side track about 2i chains from the scene of the accident. Witness gave his estimates of what he thought the slopes would be between the road and the side track at pointe. Alfred Roger Greenwood, farmer, UreWui, stated that on January 27 he left

for New Plymouth in hU car. With him were Mrs. Greenwood and his son, Mrs. Crofts and Mr. Baker, and his 12-ye<r-old daughter. It was a fourcylinder De Dion car. He compared it with an Oldsmobile, which was sft Sin wide from hub to hub, and he found that, making a comparison from the centre of the tyres, his was about six inches narrower. It was an old-fesh-loned car with straight backs. After passing a car about four miles from Waitara he came in sight of the motor lorry with which the collieion took place. The lorry had just topped a rise and was about 12 chains away. It was loaded with bridge timber, and on its right side there was a bridge pile which projected beyond the radiator about a foot over the front right wheel, while the tail of it projected over the rear for a sufficient distance to render it in the opinion of witness, difficult for him to pa*> unless ample room were given. He himself was travelling at 25 to 30 mile® pef hour, and he considered the lorry would be doing 20 miles when they met. Witness continued that when he sighted it,"the lorry was over to the wrong side. COLLISION DESCRIBED. As they approached witness drew over to his left side, and expected the lorry to do likewise, but it continued on a perfectly straight course sufficiently far over to cover the metal on his wrong ; side. Witness considered that he eould ' have paesed the lorry on the other side without leaving the metal. About four chains away he pulled out towards the i centre of the road to indicate that he I wanted more room and that he declined J to take the slope. The lorry pulled j out and witness drew towards the left j again, but the lorry straightened up before leaving the centre of the metal, and came straight towards him. Witness thought that if he were given no more room he would have to take the bank and capsize unless he made over to the right where there was room on the road | and good flat grass which he could take. As the lorry still came on without changing, witness pulled over to the right at as sharp an angle as possible. The lorry, however, swerved sharply to its left and collided with him. The main point of impact was against the front door of his car, the front seat being thrown clear of the car with the passengers on it. while the back passengers were also thrown out. The end of the pile struck the back seat about where Mrs. Crofts was seated. Witness related a conversation he had had with Johnston wherein he alleged that defendant had said that he had spoken to his driver “for not giving you more rope,” and on witness stating that he was loth to take proceedings, Johnston was alleged to have stated that he would not take it as a personal matter as he was covered by third party insurance. His right eye was suffering from a cataract due to a gorse prickle and this limited his field of vision. To Mr. O’Dea: When he turned to his right he wts unable to see the lorry, but he considered then that it was too late to do anything else. Mrs. Crofts wa a his sister-in-law, and he was also bringing an action against Johnston. The front right wheel of the lorry was on the metal when it struck him about six feet from the grass. The impact would force the lorry over a few inches. Mr. D’Dea produced a photograph show-

ing that the right front wheel was over on the grass.

Continuing, witness said thaij they were thrown out at right angles to the length of the car, Mr. Baker being caught by the heels and resting in the water table.

Mr. O’Dea said that a Mr. Putt had passed the lorry about a chain from the accident but witness said he did not see him, though his, car was there after the smash. It was quite impossible for him to mistake the rear of Putt’s Essex car for the lorry. He was about Bor 10 chains away when he discerned the timber on the lorry,. and he did not think it necessary to decrease his speed. He estimated that he was a'bout a chain away when he turned sharply. over to his right. He did not consider it safe to remain on the road-where he was, hence the turning. He ivould not deny that his car was moved only about seven inches by the impact of the lorry.

The cross-examination was continued after the luncheon when witness said that he had had ten people in his car at one time—five adults, and five children—and it was not unusual to carry six passengers. His car would be much easier to handle than a lorry and easier to turn. The steering gear was stiff; it was in good order, but did not respond so readily as iater models.

To His Honor: He first felt alarm when the lorry was about four chains away. At that time he could see only the front end of the pole on the lorry. It had struck the top of the back seat of his car, which was about five or six feet from the ground. To Mr. O’Dea: He did not speak to the driver of the lorry after the accident, but had waited until Johnston arrived. nor did he hear any of his passengers blame the driver. Witness was further questioned regarding the statements made to the police, and it transpired that he had forwarded a written statement together with one written by the police in reply to questions, but which contained some suggestions he felt he could not sign. The constable had been in a hurry. In re-examination witness said that his steering gear was working quite well on the day of the accident; the only difference was that in a modern car the steering gear responded, to the touch, while his needed firm handling. EVIDENCE OF PASSENGERS. Geoffrey Clifford Baker, tutor, Fairlie, a passenger in Greenwood’s car, stated that he was sitting on the right-hand back seat. Resuming his view of the road he espied the lorry about eight chains away. The lorry was over the rise and it appeared to him to be distinctly on its wrong side. Their car was pretty close to the left-hand side of the road and was making about 20 miles per hour. Witness’ description of the subsequent movements of the two vehicles corresponded with that of Greenwood, witness adding that, after Greenwood had made his sharp turn to the right the lorry made a turn to its left towards the sea and seemed to hit them amidships. When witness recovered consciousness he found their car with its right front wheel about three feet over on to the grass on the right side of the road, with the remainder of it on the metal, where the lorry was. Thre was no car in front of them before he saw the lorry.

Witness was cross-examined regarding: the matters which occupied his attention immediately prior to the accident, but was unshaken in his evidence. He wrs also rather sceptical regarding the information which could be deduced fromi the phonograph which Mr. O’Dea pro-, duced.

Evidence was also given by Isohel Dorothy Greenwood concerning the events immediately prior to the collision, and also by the plaintiff, Eleanor Mary Crofts, who added details of her injuries and of the doctor’s and other expenses incurred as a result of the smash. The plaintiff stated that while in England she had become a little run down as a result of w r ar nursing and nursing her son after the influenza epidemic, but except for the advice her son’s doctor had given her to take a rest, she had not found it necessary to consult a practitioner. In addition to broken ribs and a bruised arm, pleurisy and pneumonia had followed the accident,.and she had 'been in danger for a week. One of her ribs was still bent and she still sufferd pain from it. Medical evidence regarding the injuries suffered by plaintiff was given by Dr. E. F. Fookes, New Plymouth, who had attended her from February 1. The left side of her chest was considerably contused and bruised and there were two or three broken ribs. As a complication she was suffering very seriously from pleurisy and pneumonia. Her condition then was very grave, so much so as to make one almost despair of her life. The pleurisy and pneumonia were recognised as results of injuries such as she had received. There was distinct evidence of spinal concussion. Her recovery of her physical strength had been very slow and she still suffered from pain on movement of the left arm, which he attributed to the injury of the muscles and the possible involvement of nerve elements in scar tissue and the callus of the nerve tissue.

The Court rose shortly before five, and will resume this morning at ten.