MOTOR COLLISION

Wairarapa Times-Age, 16 June 1938, Page 7

MOTOR COLLISION

INTERESTING CASE HEARD IN MASTERTON. QUESTION OF CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE. A case of some interest to motorists was heard in the Masterton Magistrate’s Court yesterday in which the question of contributory negligence arose in respect to a claim for damages for injuries received in a motor collision. The action concerned a collision between' two motor vehicles in High Street, Masterton, near the borough boundary, on February 22. A man named Israel Beder was backing his lorry across the road and another car, driven by Eric Thomas Miller, who was proceeding from Carterton to Masterton, collided with the truck as it was backing across the road. A passenger in Miller’s car, A. Woolf, suffered injuries. Miller sued Beder for £lO6 12s 6d, the greater part of which represented the cost of repairs to his motor vehicile and Woolf sued Beder for £179 16s 6d for injuries sustained. Mr H. Lawson appeared for plaintiff in both cases and Mr C. C. Marsack for the defendant. The Magistrate, Mr H.- P. Lawry, held that Beder had been negligent in backing a heavy vehicle across the road without taking proper precautions to see that the road was clear, but held that substantial negligence which caused the collision was that of Miller, who should have seen the lorry much earlier than he did and should have been able to avoid a collision, by slowing down. As the result of his contributory negligence, Miller could not recover against Beder. On Miller’s claim judgment was given for defendant, with costs £7 2s. In Woolf’s case the position was different because he was entitled to sue either of the negligent parties and to recover against the party sued. Consequently his action against Beder succeeded to the extent of £l7B 8s 6d and costs £l4 18s. Mr Marsack said that Beder would be taking action against Miller for Miller’s proportion of the judgment awarded to Woolf. He asked the Magistrate if he would intimate in what degree he considered each party was negligent. If. that were done it would probably save the necessity of again hearing the case in an action by Beder against Miller. Mr Lawson agreed that it was desirable for the Magistrate to give that intimation! Mr Lawry said he had formed a very clear opinion that the negligence was seventy-five per cent Miller’s and twenty-five per cent Seder’s. LAW REFORM ACT. EFFECT OF RECENT LEGISLATION. Until the passing of the Law Reform Act in 1936, where two parties had been guilty of negligence and a third party had been injured, the third party could select either of the two negligent persons to sue and recover any damages in full against him, but there would be no right in the person sued to recover any portion of the damages against the other person who was to blame. This question usually arose where one man was a passenger in a car and a collision occurred in which the drivers of both cars were negligent. For instance, a passenger in A’s car could sue B for the whole amount and B had no right to get any portion of it back, though A was equally to blame for the collision. Since the Law Reform Act came into operation, B in that case could take action for contribution against A and the Court could fix the proportion in which the damages should be paid by the negligent parties, i.e., the drivers of the two vehicles. Previously, the driver of one car might have been ninety per cent negligent and the driver of the other car only ten per cent negligent, yet the driver who was hardly negligent at all had to foot the whole bill if a passenger in the other car elected to sue him for damages. Now a driver in that position has the right to recover from the other driver the latter's proportion of the damages in accordance with the degree of negligence.