ROTORUA SMASH

Waikato Times, Volume 122, Issue 20495, 11 May 1938, Page 8

ROTORUA SMASH

£2160 DAMAGES CLAIMED TWO DEFENDANTS ACTION HEARING IN SUPREME COURT As the result of a collision between two cars in Rotorua on July 18, 193 7, an action for £2OOO general and £l6O J2s special damages for injuries received in the accident was commenced in the Supreme Court, Hamilton, today, before His Honour. Sir Michael Myers and a jiurv of 12 by Bessie Ashton, married woman, of Rotorua. Defendants are Edward Austin Whittaker, commercial traveller, of Auckland, and Kathleen Gordon, nurse, of Wanganui. Plaintiff was represented by Mr M. 11. Hampson, of Rotorua, defendant Whittaker by Messrs W. J. King Hamilton) and A. R. Potter Rotorua) and defendant Gordon by Mr B. Haggitt. In each case the defence was a denial of negligence and an allegation of negligence against the other defendants. The accident occurred on a Sunday, said Mr Hampson, and plaintiff and her husband had been in the defendant Gordon’s small car. Mrs Ashton, an elderly woman, being in the front seat with Miss Gordon. At the time of the accident, the small car was moving quite slowly. The plaintiff's case, said Mr Hampson, was an allegation that the fault was defendant Whittaker s. As a result of the collision, plaintiff had been severely injured. William Martin Ashton, retired, said he was plaintiff’s husband, and that Miss Gordon was a friend of theirs. At the time of the accident and just prior to it the car had been doing about 20 miles per hour, certainly not much more. The car was proceeding along Ranolf Avenue to the intersection with Malfrov Road. Witness first saw Whittaker’s car when they were almost on the intersection and when Whittaker’s car was about a chain away on witness’ left. Witness expected Whittaker to bring his car to a standstill, but he continued and struck the left rear wheel of Miss Gordon’s car with the left side of his front bumper, turning the latter car right round and turning it over on its side. Plaintiff was taken to a neighbouring private cor. There was no car parked on either side of Ranolf Avenue within 300 yards of the intersection. Witness’ wife had enjoyed good health before the accident. Dangerous Intersection To Mr King witness said that there had been two or three accidents at the intersection. It was regarded as fairly dangerous, and speed-restric-tion signs had been posted at the approaches. Witness agreed that a sign which Miss Gordon's car would have passed was marked “15 m.p.h.” There was also a school-warning painted on the road. Witness heard no horn sounded prior to the impact. Constable J. J. Quirke, of Rotorua, said he had taken a statement. Witness had not the statement with him. Inspector C. W. Lopdell wished a court order for the production of the statements made in the case. His Honour: Counsel are agreed on the production of these statements. The public interest will not he prejudiced by the production of these documents and I do not need to give a ruling. The statements being obtained, Whittaker’s was put into court. In it he stated that he had been travelling in second gear at about 15 miles per hour when he entered on the intersection. He had sounded his horn hut the other car ‘‘seemed to come from nowhere.” It had nut been in his sight when he entered the intersection. In a statement. Miss Gordon said she had not sounded her horn. She had been doing 20-25 miles per hour when the other car “shot out” while she was on the crossing. She had swerved off to avoid the impact. Production of Letter To Mr King, witness said that he had received a letter signed by Miss Gordon relating to her statement. The letter was on The police files and witness would require a court order to secure it. For Miss Gordon, Mr Haggitt agreed that the letter should be put in. “You will have to produce it, constable,” said His Honour. “The police are here to assist in the administration of justice. I understand, of course, that there are cases where the production of documents would be contrary to the interests of justice, hut where .the party who has handed the document lo the police waives any objection lo its production and actually joins in the request for its production. I cannot understand why there should be any further difficulty.” Following cross-examination by Mr Haggitt, witness said, in reply to His Honour, -that, he deduced the point of impact from skid-marks, broken glass on the road, and marks on the road. Witness had also been informed on this point by Mr Ashton, defendant Whittaker and another man. The letter referred to previously was then produced and read. Statement Criticised In the letter, defendant Gordon said that the statement originally made did not sound like her story but more like that of “a young flapper with a cargo of joy-riders.” The writer was a middle-aged nurse and she had been driving with elderly friends. Fast or reckless driving would not have been enjoyable for them, and they driving quietly. The form of the statement had seemed wrongly to interpret e her story. Helen McCarthy, married woman, living at the corner of Malfroy Road and Ranolf Avenue, said she heard the crash and was the first on the scene. Witness had found a small car turned over on its side and had helped Miss Gordon out of it. To Mr King, witness said she had thought af onrn of her children when she heard the crash and had rushed • ait through her Ranolf Avenue gate. Whit Inker's car was drawn up bv Ihe kerb in Malfroy Road. The hearing of plaintiff’s case having concluded. Mr Haggitt moved formally for a non-suit, mi the ground that the evidence had not proved negligence against Miss Cordon. On His Honour slating. however, that, lie was not prepared to grant .me he withdrew his application. (Proceeding;