REASONABLE CARE

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 57, Issue 246, 29 July 1937, Page 6

REASONABLE CARE

RESPONSIBILITY OF MOTORISTS.

DRIVING IN DAZZLING LIGHT.

QUESTION IN SUPREME COURT. (Per Press Association.) CHRISTCHURCH, This Day. The trial of Frank Rowland Coe cn a charge of negligent driving so as to cause death was described by Mr Justice Narthcroft in the Supreme Court to-day as a classic one, as the jury’s decision would set a standard of reasonable care for motorists.

The Judge said that the Crown’s case was that accused was travelling at a reasonable speed and was not affected by liquor, but the question was whether accused was reasonably careful, continuing when blinded by the lights of another vehicle. During that time lie fatally injured a cyclist. The accident no doubt happened through someone taking risks. The auestion was whether accused took that risk. A man was forbidden to take any risk which endangered anyone else. A person who drove when he could not see was guilty of negligence. Accused was on the horns of a dilemma. Either ho did not keep a proper look-out or else he was trying to do so, but could not, by being blinded by oncoming lights. Accused’s action in pulling , over to the left and slowing down a considerable distance before the bicycle was struck indicated that he had been embarrassed by the lights for some time. Pulling to the left under such circumstances did not seem to be wise, as anything might be struck. The unfortunate cyclist had pulled into the gravel in the hope that there at least he would be safe.

“It would he a great misfortune if the jury, thinking this man did not use reasonable care, failed to say so.” The jury lias retired.