NEGLIGENT DRIVING.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXVI, Issue 4879, 18 September 1925, Page 3

NEGLIGENT DRIVING.

WHAREPOA ROAD ACCIDENT. “DRIVER OFF HIS GUARD.” A sequel to the motor accident on the Kerepeehi-Wharepoa Road in June last, when Mr and Mrs R. L. Davies and Mr G. R. Death were run into by a motor-car driven by Mi- C. Nicholson was heard at the Thames Court on Wednesday last, when Cyril Nicholson wap charged with negligently driving a motor-car on the Kere-peehi-Wharepoa road and thereby causing bodily injury to Marea Lois Davies, Rowland Lawrence Davies, and Gordon Raymond Death. The case for the police was conducted by Sergeant McDonald, assisted by Constable Devereaux. Sergeant McDonald said that defendant was driving to Kerepeehi, and some people who were walking in the same direction and as far to the side of the road as was possible were run down. Mrs- Davies had her leg broken and Mr Death also required hospital treatment, while Mr Davies could not be moved on account of his injuries.

T J. Mountain, licensed surveyor, Kereepehi, the first police witness, produced a plan showing the road arid the position of the- car and the people as pointed out to him by Constable Devereaux. The width of the metal at the scene was 19ft 3in, and there was ample room for two cars, to pass and the pedestrians to walk without going off the metal.

In reply to Mr A. T. Jones (counsel for defendant) witness said that- except for the broken glass there was nothing to show where the accident had occurred. There were wheel marks off the metal in a position where a car was nbt likely to be driven, but he could not say what car had made the marks-. He did not know that the car had been driven further along in the same direction after the accident.

G. R. Death, factory-hand,. Kopuarahi, in reply to Sergeant McDonald, said that between 7 p.m. and 7.30 p.m. he was walking along the WharepoaKerepeehi road in company with Mr and Mrs Davies. He noticed a indtorcar coming up behind and also one coming to meet them. This car appeared tb be some distance away, and to have good lights, but they were not so bright as to affect the vision of the pedestrians. The three pedestrians had moved to the left-hand side of the road, and walked in single file at the edge of the grass. Mrs Davies was in front and, if anything, nearest the side of the road. Mr Davies followed, with himself at the rear of the file and nearest to the middle of the road. He was struck down by the car, apparently having been hit by the lamp on the right-hand side of the car. As far as he could judge Nicholson’s car was not travelling fast, and after the accident only continued for a few feet. He crawled put from underneath and was very , dazed at the time. He remembered seeing Mrs Davies at. the left-hand side of the car and Mr Davies on the ground. The other car, which had been seen approaching from Kerepeehi, was then stopped alongside. There was no occasion for Nicholson’s car to be so far to the side of the road, consideirng how far away the other car was.

Cross-examined by Mr Jones witness stated that the party had only walked a few- chains, and as they knew the cars were approaching kept to the left-hand side of the road. They did not think Nicholson would pull off to the side just there, as the car which was approaching from the front was a good distance away. In reply to His Worship witness stated that the car which was approrching, from the front had bright headlights, and these were not dimmed. .

Mrs Davies’ evidence was similar to that of the prvious witness. The lights of the approaching car did hot dazzle her. She was pinned under the back wheel of Nicholson’s car, and was helped out. The other car had not arrived then. Mr Nicholson bad told her that he could not see the pedestrians, as he had had his cap pulled down close to his eyes.. Dr. Ritchie, medical superintendent, Thames hospital, gave evidence as to the extent of the injuries, of Mrs Davies and Mrs Death.

Mr R. L Davies gave similar evidence to that of the other two witnesses. Seeing that the Kerepeehi car was about a mile away there was no reason why Nicholson should be sb far to the left side of the road. Nicholson was a careful driver. If driving slowly, the defendant’s lights would have been dimmed. He could not say whether he would be seen by Nicholson, as the party were right at the side of the road and Nicholson’s attention was undoubtedly drawn to the approaching car. Constable Devereaux stated that the accident was reported to him on the following morning, and he had visited the scene. There were distinct marks of motor-car wheels showing the course of Nicholson’s car. The marks of the front wheels were much deeper than the back wheels, showing that they had continued revolving after the car had been stepped by the application of the brake. He had obtained a statement from Nicholson.

In the statement, which was read, Nicholson said that he Wats dazzled by the lights of the approaching car and did not see the pedestrians when he slowed down, and his lights we’nt so dim that he could only see the road for about half a chain. This concluded the case for the police. His Worship expressed the opinion that the case should nbt have been made an indictable offence, but should nave been brought under section 28 and dealt with summarily.

Sergeant McDonald said that he was acting under instructions. It was agreed that the charge be reduced, as suggested by His Worhsip. Mr Jones submitted that Nicholson had not driven negligently, but had been over cautious. On this occasion he was driving very carefully, ais his wife was with him and cattle were usually straying pn the road at the

point. He had estimated that the approaching car was only 20 chains away.

Examined by Mr Jones, Nicholson said that he was not confused by the lights of the approaching car, but was keeping a good look-out for straying horses. On seeing the three pedestrians he put on the brakes, and this stalled the engine. He was asked to find Mrs Davies’ slipper, but could not see it. He moved the car about two lengths ahead and then found that the slipper had been beneath the car. He had taken measurements the following day, and these proved that the car had only travelled eight or nine feet after striking the first person. He was going to the assistance of Mrs Davies, and went round to the side of the car and stopped Mr Fisher's car by holding up his hand. He and Mr Fisher then assisted Mrs Davies from under the car.

Tb Sergeant McDonald: Fisher’s car was travelling at about 15 miles an hour.

Witness said his own lights only hsone for about half a chain, and he was dazzled by the lights of the approaching car and decided to pull to the side of the road and stop until it had passed. It was then that the' pedestrians were struck. In his opinion the three people were walking abreast.

Mrs D. Nicholson, wife of the accused, stated in evidence to Mr Jones that her vision was confused by the lights of the approaching car and she did not see the three people until the car was almost on top of them. She then warned her husband, but it was too late.

In summing up His Worship said that the case was a simple one. The question was the amount of negligence. This could vary. There were degrees of negligence and degrees of carefulness. Nicholson’s own evidence pointed to negligence. Hip statement was accepted, and the opinion formed was that he was paying too much attention to the approaching car and not . enough to the road. He did not see the pedestrians until his attention was drawn to them by his wife. The case was not one of gross negligence, but a case of a driver being off his guard. There was no doubt that the result had caused severe -injuries, for which defendant was civilly liable. He thought it would be sufficient if Nicholson was convicted and fined £lO and costs. He could not grant coihpensation for the injuries-, as that required expert evidence.

The costs amounted to £9 3s, and time was granted in which to pay.