Supreme Court Motorist Guilty Of Fatal Negligence

Press, Volume C, Issue 29503, 3 May 1961, Page 10

Supreme Court Motorist Guilty Of Fatal Negligence

A jury In the Supreme Court yesterday found Anthony Earl Thomas, aged 21, a driver, guilty of negligently driving his car in High street on October 17, i 960, thereby causing the death of a pedestrian, Margaret Mary Jennings. aged 51, married. The jury added a recommendation for leniency.

The jury took 50 minutes to reach it* verdict. Mr Justice Macarthur remanded Thomas in custody for sentence on Thursday. Mr C. M. Roper conducted the case for the Crown Mr J. G. Leggat appeared for Thomas, who pleaded not guilty. Opening the case for the Crown, Mr Roper said that Thomas, in a statement to the police after the accident, admitted he was the driver of the car which hit Mrs Jennings. The CroWi? had to prove that Thomas had driven negligently and that this negligence had been a substantial cause of Mrs Jennings'* death. On Pedestrian Crossing

The accident, the Crown said, occurred on the pedestrian crossing in High street between Hallenstein Brothers' comer and Woolworths. Ltd., about 1 p.m. on October 17, 1960, Mr Roper said. ‘The evidence will be that Mrs Jennings and her son were crossing from east to west and that Mrs Jennings was about three-quarters of the way across the pedestrian crossing, with her son a few feet behind her, when she was struck down by the car driven by Thomas. Mrs Jennings was taken to hospital with serious head injuries, and died, without regaining consciousness, six days later." The Crown evidence would be that Thomas was driving toward the Square at a speed of about 15 miles an hour. The weather was fine and visibility good. There would be evidence that there was no obstruction to Thomas's view of the crossing. 'The Crown says that the accused failed to keep a proper look-out and that he failed to give right of way to Mrs Jennings, when she was on the half of the pedestrian crossing he was approaching. as he was required to do by the Traffic Regulations, 1956,” Mr Roper said. Crown Evidence Peter James Ward would give evidence that he saw Thomas’s car approaching the crossing and saw Thomas looking over his right shoulder. “Mr Ward will say he was concerned that there was going to be an accident. He called out 'Look out!' to the driver, but his warning camd too late. The car hit Mrs Jennings,” Mr Ripper said.

He said that Ronald Gilbert Sheddcn would say he was driving in the opposite direction at the time and had stopped his car to let Mrs Jennings and other pedestrians across the crossing. Mr Sheddon would say he saw Mrs Jennings thrown to the ground by the car. Mr Roper said that Thomas, in a statement to the police, said he had been driving for about six years. “I can only say the collision was due to my not seeing the pedestrian. I ’did not see the pedestrian until It was too late to avoid her,” Thomas’s statement concluded, said Mr Roper. “It is up to you to decide why the accused did not see Mrs Jennings. She was there to be seen, and the Crown says Thomas was negligent in not seeing her,” Mr Roper concluded.

Evidence along these lines was given by witnesses called by the Crown. Constable G. F. Davidson said that Thomas had arrived at the Central Police Station shortly after the collision. Thomas in his statement, read to the Court, said that he was travelling about 10 miles an hour in second gear in his 1930-model car. He had looked to right and left and saw nobody, Thomas said in his statement. He looked ahead, saw a woman right in front of the car, and applied the brakes. Defence Address Mr Leggat called no evidence for the defence. Addressing the jury, he

said there was no evidence, or even suggestion of recklessness by thWiWcused There was no evidence of speed, drink, or a car that should not have been on the road. Counsel for the Grown had oversimplified the case. Mr Leggat suggested, and so had some of the Crown witnesses Mr Ward’s evidence Was unacceptable because, on his own evidence, Ihe had seen the accused driving lip the road looking pver hi* shoulder; be (Ward) had turned and shouted to him, and the accused had put on bis brakes as he hit the woman. “But on Mr Ward’s own evidence he saw all this in less than one second. Another witness had seen the accused driving up the street but had said he was driving normally—not looking over his shoulder. “Why didn’t the accused see Mrs Jennings? I suggest to you that he looked momentarily to his right at some distraction. Anyone of you driving knows this. Yon involuntarily look on hearing a bicycle fall over or a child call out I suggest that it Is a reasonable inference that the accused was distracted and that Mr Ward saw him turn his head for a second," Mr Leggat said. Counsel said the jury must not judge the negligence, momentary carelessness, that led to the accident by the gravity of the consequences. It was indeed unfortunate that a woman had been killed; but the same distraction in the same second might have only led to a dent in a bicycle. The jury had to place itself in the accused’s position and decide if his reactions in a moment of distraction amounted to negligence, Mr Leggat submitted.