Judgment on Claim And on Counter-claim

Manawatu Times, Volume LIV, Issue 7278, 4 October 1933, Page 3

Judgment on Claim And on Counter-claim

RESERVED DECISION IN MOTOR COLLISION CASE In the Palmerston North Magistrate’s Court yesterday morning Mr J. L. Stout, S.M., delivered his reserved decision in the case heard on July 14 last, when W. J. Barlow, of Rongotea, claimed £l6O 4s Od from Annie Emma Glencora Turnbull, widow, of Feilding, as the sequel to a collision on June 1 29. 1932, at the intersection of the I Longburn-Rongotea and Aorangi roads, ■ between a ear driven by defendant , and a car owned by plaintiff and ; driven by his son. Defendant countcrclaimed for £175 Os 3d, including £l7O | for the loss of her ear. ■ "This is an action for damages sus- [ tained by plaintiff’s motor-car, which 1 was driven by his son as agent, with ! doefudant’s car,” said Mr Stout in his 1 judgment. "There is also a counter- ■ claim by the defendant against the ' plaintiff. Both parties claim that the ■ accident, was caused by the negligence ; of the opposite party or his agent. In 1 iv opinion the primary cause of toe ! accident was the negligence of the plaintiff’s agent. I find that lie was travelling at an excessive speed and that the ear he was driving had defective brakes. I also find that he deliberately accelerated in order to try and race the defendant for the intersection. His speed can be judged by the excessive damage done to both the defendant’s and plaintiff’s cars. I am exceedingly sceptical about plaintiff’s evidence that he saw skid marks of his ear for a distance of 18 feet prior to the point of collision. He did not point them out to the constable who was present taking measurements, and the constable did not sec them. _ If the brakes were on for that distance, cither this shows how excessive the s nee til was to cause the damage sustained, or it shows that the brakes could not have been very efficient. I think, however, t.hat the defendant contributed to the accident by her disregard of the right-hand rule, although it is true the accident happened on plaintiff’s wrong side of the road. 1 think site should have recognised that there was a danger in attempting to cross over in front of the approaching car and should have obeyed tho regulation. T do not find, however, that her negligence was the primary cause of the accident. Had the plaintiff’s agent approached the crossing at a reasonable speed and had his car been under proper control, it is probable that he could have avoided the accident by checking his car and passing behind the defendant. In my opinion it is one of those cases where it is impossible to say that the accident was caused solely by the negligence of either party. I think both were to blame. I therefore give judgment for the defendant on tho claim and for the plaintiff on the counter-claim, with no costs to either party.” At the hearing Mr H. E. Cooper appeared for plaintiff and Mr \\. E. Fit-zherbert for defendant.