MOTOR COLLISION.

Taranaki Daily News, 2 September 1922, Page 7

MOTOR COLLISION.

ALLEGED NEGLIGENT DRIVING. JACKSON VERSUS SMITH. JUDGMENT FOR £375. IN FAVOR OF ' SMITH, The Supreme Court resumed its sittings at New Plymouth yesterday morniog at 9.30 to -continue the' hearing of the clgjtn brought by Edward J-afekson- against A'ftnur ■John Smith' for £750-- damages arising out. of a collision between plaintiff’s car '-uhd defendant’s- -motor" bus- on the Wafo&ra--New Plymouth ’road near-the golf-linkrf fon June L. .The defendant counter-clafaffed -.for £500..'

i Thomas David Fowler' hairdresser, rWai;.tar% a, pasgeiiger in.-the bus, said that'as I (hey came round the corner he saw Jackj .son a ? caj approaching. :;He appeared e; to I swing'oyer, to- the wrong -side of the roatjl, [ and continued there until within a few the collision occurred, gjffe was not. apprehensive of a. collision uutijl they were a few chains- apart, and then he an accident was bound to happen, "83 biis. was going over to its wrong side and Jacjcson was coming over there, ..too, Th e impact took place on the. bus’ correct aidei-and witness was thrown out over the. metal on to the sand at. the side of the-.road'. Jackson was lying on the road, arid witness went to render him, assistance. He asked Jackson what he was doing on that side of the road, and plaintiff had answered that he had not kept his eye on the road owing to cigarette ash having got into the eye of one of his passengers, and he had been looking at him. Jackson also stated that he had not seen the bus until -one of his passengers had called out. Witness saw two long skid marks on the road behind the car,' but the back wheels of the car appeared to’ have jumped round after the impact. After the collision the two machines formed a V, with the bonnets together ' and pointing towards the inland side of the road. Jackson was incorrect in saying that he approached- the bus on his correct side. Answering Mr. Quilliam,- witness said he was quite cool after the accident. Jackson was only a few yards away when he turned over to his correct side. By the way the cars .finished, up he would say that Feek had turned a little towards his side of the road again. The accident happened on the mountain side of the road, and he was sure the bus was never over on its wrong side.

THE EFFECT OF A CIGARETTE. was also given by Richard B. Wood, veterinary surgeon, Archie Street, painter, and Mrs. Josephine Rogers, other passengers in the bus to the effect that when they first saw Jackson he was driving distinct on his wrong side of the road, ing distinctly on his wrong side of the road, lision occurred. Rev Watson, Eltham, a passenger in Jackson’s car, said he was sitting just behind Jackson who, with Simpson, also in the front seat, was smoking. Some ash got into Simpson’s. eye, and Jackson apparently threw his cigarette away with his right hand, but remained looking at Sampson. Barr called out to look out for the bus, but in a few seconds the crash occurred. While Jackson was looking, at Sampson the car was on the wrong side of the road, and he remained there for a second or two after Barr called out and then swerved to the left. After the collision he heard Feek ask Jackson why he had put out his hand, but did not hear the reply. To Mr. Quilliam: Jackson was paying attention to Sampson for about 20 to 25 seconds. He could not say how far off the bus was when he saw it. Jackson’s turn over to his correct side would be a slight one, judging by the skid marks on the road. MARKS ON THE ROAD. Thomas Sampson, farmer, Hillsborough, said he arrived on the scene a few minutes after the accident. The bus had been shifted, and he noticed two skid marks about 20 to 30 feet in length behind the car. These marks started at the mountain side of the tar, and inclined to the left until they reached the po:nt of impact. The rear of the car was thrown round off the marks. The. marks shown on the plan produced corresponded with his impression of them on the road, and he had no doubt but that they had been made by Jackson’s car. In answer to Mr. Quilliam, witness said he had not examined the tyres, closely. After a severe skid he would expect to see marks on the tyre. Senior-Sergeant M’Crorie gave evidence to the effect that he went out to the scene of the accident in the car in which Jackson was brought back into town. He measured the wheel base of Jackson’s car? The marks on the road were . slightly broader than the tyres of Jackson’s car.’ He examined the tyres, and the two back ones were roughened, but he could not say they had skidded. He did not see any tar marks. Answering Mr. Quilliam, witness said that judging by the marks on the road and the oil stain the collision would have occurred on the left side of the road going out. There were no marks of cars on the sand. .The left side of the car struck the left side of the bus. Reginald Day, New Plymouth boroughinspector, gave further details as to the plan produced by Mr. Griffiths, with whom he "made the measurements. Every mark on the road was shown on the plan. The car’s wheel base corresponded with the interval between the two marks on the road. OTHER EVIDENCE. Roy John Doisley, Bell Block, who brought some of the injured people into New Plymouth, said that some of Jackson’s passengers remarked to him that the plaintiff had not seen the bus owing, to the attention he was paying to Sampson. On returning from town he saw a cigarette in a holder in Jackson’s car. He could not say if the holder produced was the one he saw. Lawrence Harold Johnson, motor garage. proprietor, New Plymouth, said be brought the bus into town after the accident. The front wheels could not be used, so the front of the bus was slung to a truck, and the machine brought in in that way. Examination showed that the chasis was badly buckled, and eventually it was decided to repair it at a cost of £275, the work to be done in spare time, and at Smith’s risk. Witness also examined Jackson’s car, and estimated that it could be repaired for £230. Replying to Mr. Quilliam, it seemed to have been a head-on collision, but the greater part of the damage to the bus was on the left side. DEFENDANT IN THE BOX. The defendant, Arthur John Smith, motor service proprietor, then entered the box, and stated that after he arrived at the scene of the accident, he was advised to have a record made of the tracks and marks. Accordingly he sent a taxi for Mr. Griffiths and the inspector. He did not interfere with anything, and without knowing the circumstances he felt inclined

.to blame his driver because the bus was on the wrong side of the road. He saw tar marks ou the tyres of Jackson’s car, but could hot see them when be saw the car again at New Plymouth. He presumed they had become worn off while the car was being towed into town. All told the bus would have cost him about £B5O when he got it. Continuing, witness gave details of the. costs he had been put to to keep bio service going, as A result" J bf the loss of the - services of the bus. It would'be a question as to whether the bus, when repaired, would be very serviceable; he expected a good deal of trouble from it. the luncheon adjournment the jury inspected, .the scene of . the collision, and on h-eturffing to the' Court was addressed 4 by counsel. THE SUMMING UP. In summing up His Honor said that the solution of the conflicting evidence rented gn the jury and lie would not say vety ifiiieh, but there were certain matters to which it was hie duty to direct their attention. Counsel on both, sides had treated the case as one in which one or other of the drivers was to blame. It was not a question of contributing negligence, but each counsel had insisted on behalf of his client that the driver, of the other vehicle was to blame and the jury would have to solve the question as-tq which was responsible. This was a case-of claim and counter-claim —really two plaintiffs, or really two actions tried in one. The question as to which would succeed was a question of fact and if they found one of them to blame they would have to decide what damages thQ, other should be awarded. Then they had to consider the two stories. They often had conflicting stories in motor accidents; very often the people in one car had one story and the people in the other vehicle told another. This was not absolutely the case, in the present instance, but in most cases it. was, and what they would naturally look for was whether there was a silent witness. The owner of the omnibus naturally asked them to first investigate the’ question as to whether the skidding marks of the ear were found on the toad and, if they wore found, in which direction did they point. His Honor thought that he might fairly say that if they found that the marks on the road were the ear marks, then it was a very valuable piece of evidence, because it was not dependent on human evidence. His Honor then proceeded to review the evidence bearing on the car marks. It had been challenged by counsel for the plaintiff, and it was for the jury to T .say whether it ha<l been successfully . challenged. Continuing, His Honor said it had been put to them tliat the . accident undoubtedly happened because Jackson had put his hand out. Mr. Quilliam asked them to say that Feek was looking for some Solution as to why Jackson was on his wrong side it was for the jury to say’ whether there was anything wrong in his so dbing when it appeared to him that Jackson was in a state of stress. The jury retired at 5.30 p.m., and were out until a few minutes after 8 o’clock when they returned a verdict for the defendant on the counter-claim for £375. Judgment was therefore entered accordingly, with costs as per scale, witnesses’ expenses and disbursements to be fixed by the registrar. A second day was allowed at £l5 15s.