Quorn historical image   Quorn Village On-line Museum

Tuesday 10th December 2019  

County Court - Howlett v Priestley 1928

Loughborough Monitor and Herald - 22nd December 1928

Motorist to pay damages - Loughborough County Court Action

At Loughborough County Court on Tuesday, before His Honour Judge Haydon, K.C., George Howlett, coal merchant, Farnham Street, Quorn, claimed 6 192 8d damages from Arthur Priestley, High Street, Quorn, motor garage proprietor, for alleged negligent driving and consequent damage to his lorry on October 31.

Mr M J Pearce, of Messrs Slater, Brunton and Straw, solicitors, appeared for plaintiff, and Mr R S Clifford, junr., for defendant.

Plaintiff stated that he had delivered a load of coal at the Quorn Hygienic Laundry in his truck. His son was driving, and as they were emerging from the gateway, a car driven by defendant, which was going at a fast rate, struck the truck on the off-side wheel. Witness put out his hand to indicate the direction in which they were going, and his fingers were injured.

"But for my son's promptitude in pulling up he would have gone right through us, and I should not have been here today," said plaintiff, who added that defendant did not pull up or shut off his engine."

"Defendant tried to rush by to try and make us look silly," said plaintiff, in reply to Mr Clifford, and added that defendant's car ran for 55 yards on the grass at the edge of the road. Defendant was asked to perform the repairs, but would not do so. Plaintiff's son said his father put his hand out to indicate the turn. Defendant was travelling at 35 miles an hour and witness was going at five.

Walter Davidson, 6 Holland-street, Loughborough, a stoker employed by the laundry, stated that plaintiff had his hand out to indicate the intention of turning.

Defendant's case was that the accident was caused by Howlett suddenly turning without warning. He saw no signal given. He did all he could to avoid the collision.

In reply to Mr Pearce, defendant said there was no question of slowing down. In another moment he would have passed.

His Honour said he was of opinion that plaintiff's hand was out, and held that Priestley alone was guilty of negligence in that a proper signal was given and he did not see it. He gave judgement for plaintiff for 6 19s 8d with costs.

   
 Submitted on: 2011-01-09
 Submitted by: Kathryn Paterson
 Artefact ID: 1162

   Quorn Village On-line Museum
 copyright notice