CASE OF RIGHT HAND RULE

Chronicle (Levin), 15 April 1947, Page 2

CASE OF RIGHT HAND RULE

-pr?ss Association

nm TpJ.pnrn.Tih—

* • AUCKLAND, Apfil 14'. ' i There appears to be a \viuely hent view -that tne obligation of a. dnvei to give way at an intersection tp Iraiiie on liis right, eeases if his venicle reaches the intersection lirst.. If tiiai view is eorrect in law, the right liauu l'uie is a snare and a delusion and is much more likely to lead to an inerease of aceideiits rather than to a ,deerease, " said Mr. J!. 11. Luxford, S.Al., when de-livering a •reserved de.cision in a case in which Eric Marshall Howard, brieklayer, was chai'gcd* with a breacn of the right hand rule. The case arosc from a collision between defendant 's motor car with a motor cycle ut an in tersection at night. At the liearing of the charge defendant pleaded noi ; guilty. j The magistrate said: "Although, 111 | my opinion, the regulation relating tb ; approaching and erossing intersections is in urgent need of furtlier revisiou and elarifieation, the existing'rule must be interpreted and enforced in the meantime. " After speaking of cases mentioncd by eounsel in support of his 5 general coutention that the right hand rule did.not apply at all to a driver w'hose veliiele was first 011 an intersection, the Magis-'-trate quoted from judgments given l»y Sir Michael Myers, former Chief Justiee, Mr. Justice Fair, Mr.-Justice Finlay and Mr. S. L. Paterson, S.M., and said the position of defendant Who eoinmitted a breach of the right hand rule was verv different in civil and cr'iminal proceedings. If he failcd to give way "to a vehicle entitled to the right of | way, he niust be convicted unless there ! were an absenee of mens rea as defiued [ by Mr. Justice Fair. If lic were sued for damages 011 the ground that his failure to yield right of way constitutj ed a negligent act, he was entitled to raise by way of def'ence •plaintiff 's owii negligenee, in which case .a " very important question might be which of tlie parties was lirst on the. intersection? In j the present case the evidence proves ai breach of the regulations by defendant 1 in eii'cumstances justifying a conviction." concluded the jMagistrate. Defendant was lined £1 and costs.