TRIPLE COLLISION

Waikato Times, Volume 121, Issue 20256, 27 July 1937, Page 8

TRIPLE COLLISION

POLICE CHARGE FAILS. NEGLIGENCE NOT PROVED. MOTORIST EXONERATED. “ Negligence is the want of due care having regard to the circumstances, the care being that as exercised by the average prudent driver," said Mr. S. L. Paterson, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court. Hamilton, to-day, in dismissing the information laid by the police against Edward James Parry of negligent driving on the Great South Road at ‘Horotiu on January 27. The magistrate added that the evidence did not prove the negligence of defendant. The prosecution was conducted by Senior-Sergeant G. H. Lambert, while Mr. A. K. North (Auckland,) appeared for defendant.

The case arose from an accident at Horotiu on January 27 when three cars were involved in a collision.

Kathleen ’Saulbrey said just before the accident she was turning from the Great South Road into Duxfield Road at Horotiu. She put out her hand about two chains before the corner. The speed of her car was about 13-20 miles per hour. When passing the centre of the road, turning to the right, a car approached from behind and passed .across the path of witness’s car, striking it. There was another car approaching toward witness. The approaching vehicle, driven by a woman, swerved to avoid defendant's vehicle. Defendant swerved after hitting witness's car and collided with the other approaching vehicle. Realised the Danger. Cross-examined, witness said that she realised that it was dangerous to cross over a main road into a bystreet unless the road was clear. Witness could not see defendant's car through her rear vision mirror. After the impact witness’s car was entirely off the bitumen. Witness said that despite the fact that her car had Just been hit she was able to see what occurred between the other two vehicles which hit each other on witness’s left. Doris Mary Hudson, a married woman, of Epsom, said in evidence that she was driving the car which was proceeding north. She saw two cars approaching. One of the vehicles turned into Duxfield Road at a moderate speed. Witness reduced speed, leaving ample time for Mrs. Saulbrey to make the turn. Then the second car driven by defendant coming south hit Mrs. Saulbrey’s vehicle. It appeared to accelerate rapidly, then bounced towards witness’s car. Witness swerved to the right to avoid hitting both cars but a collision with defendant’s vehicle was inevitable and her car was hit about half-way along the left side. Witness and a passenger were injured, while the car driven by witness was a total wreck. Caw No Signal. Cross-examined, witness said that she did not see Mrs. Saulbrey signal her intention to turn. To His Worship, witness said defendant's car swerved out very quickly to overtake Mrs. Saulbrey’s car. Kepa Tahana, of Ngaruawahia, said he was riding a bicycle when Mrs. Saulbrey passed him and greeted him with a nod. Witness looked back and saw that she was signalling her intention to turn to the right. Defendant’s car was travelling at more than 33 miles per hour. Cross-examined, witness said that Mrs. Saulbrey signalled before she turned. Subsequent Proceedings. Mr. North mentioned tho importance of the question of contributory negligence and that the result of the case might affect subsequent proceedings. He submitted that Mrs.. Saulbrey’s sw'ng across the main road was •dangerous. "Some motorists turn ffrsf and signal next,” remarked Mr. Paterson.