NEGLIGENT DRIVING.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXVII, Issue 4934, 3 February 1926, Page 3

NEGLIGENT DRIVING.

, the pipiroa car accident.

result of inexperience.

a sequel to the motor-car accident that occurred on the Pipiroa-Waitaka-ruru Road on December 2, 1925, and in which Mr F. W. Epps, farmer, of Mangatarata, received such injuries that he is still a patient of the Thames Hospital, was heard at .the Magistrate’s Court, Thames on Monday, before Mr J. H. Salmon, S.M., •When Miss Flora McAulay and Mrs Mary Dalgety were both charged witn driving a car without licensees, and also ni a manner dangerous to. the public. Mr E. Walton appeared for defendants. Constable Reilly, in outlining the case, sftated that Epps, while riding a very quiet old horse which was not in the habit of shying at .motor-cars, heard a car approaching from behind and pulled to the side of the road. However, the horse moved on to tne metal again to avoid a lump of clay. The car struck .the horse, which bo ted. ' The car again struck .the horse, and this time Epps was thrown off and injured. Mrs Dalgety was; sitting alongside the driver, Miss McAulay. Epps' heard her call out “brake,’.’ as. though instructing Miss McAulay. Ap-

parently Miss McAulay failed to apNKply the brake and put her foot on the accelerator, with the result that the car bounded ahead and struck the horse a second time; Neither of the women had a driver’s! license, and the police contended .that they should be convicted for that offence, and also .for driving in a negligent manner. The case was brought under instructions from the Police Department. Frederick Williams Epps, the man who had been injured, gave his version of the accident. Hearing the \car approaching, he had pulled to the side of the road, but the horsje stepped, back again on account of there being a big mound o-f, clay. The horse would then have been between the edge of the metal and the wheel marks. The left rein was pulled and

< the horse s,wung round,' hut was hit the left side. The car stopped with ‘the impact, and .the horse commenced to- canter away. Epps looked round and saw who >vais' in the car. He heard someone’ shout. He was then out of the saddle, but on the hbnse’s back, and was able to get back into the s.addl'e. At that moment the horse was again hit by the car, and seemed to shoot from beneath him. He struck the road with one knee and both hands, and the car seemed to pass right over him. He tried to get up, but could not. Mrs Dalgety rendered assistance. In, reply to Constable Reilly Epps

stated that he recognised Mns' Dal- -- gety in the seat beside the driver. He ( was not injured by being thrown from

the horse, but attributed his injuries ■ to being run over by the car. In his tcxipinion a competent driver could have * stopped after the first co?lision. Examined - by Mr Walton, witness stated that he did not hear a'horn blo,wn. When the horse was struck the second time he appeared to be left in the air. He fell to the ground

- behind the horse, and the car parsed I right over him. He was sure of this as he remembered seeing the bottom of the car. He did not remember Slaying that the mishap was. a “mere accident.” The defendants would be wrong if they said the house wa&only struck once. In turning to the side of the road the horse’s front feet were on the grass, ais- far as he could judge, but its hind feet were we-Hl on the metal. At the 'second impact the horse was. in the middle of the road. Dr. James Ritchie, hospital doctor,

' stated that Epps was admitted with a severe cut over the right' eye and abrasions on that side of the head. There were abrasions on

the back of both hands', the right knee, and the side of the left knee. • He was unable to move his, lower limbs, and had the symptoms of a fractured pelvis. There was a severe bruise across the patient’s back. An X-ray photograph showed a fractured bone, causing distortion of the pelvis. The injuries were conafefent with a motor accident, as though he had fallen and received the cut on the forehead and then been dragged or pushed along, causing the abrasions. In reply to Mr Walton witness admitted that a fractured pelvis could be caused by falling on the back. The abrasions, could have been caused by being thrown from the horse, but

.this was unlikely. To the police witness stated that if L-- the patient had been .thrown from a horse it would be unlikely that he would receive injuries on the back and also the front of the body. Constable J. C. Devereaux gave evidence of the inquiries made, by him concerning the accident. He had, examined the car, and had found that the ra'diatpr and bonnet had been damaged, a mudguard bent, and there was some hair attached to one of the sjpring bolts. The horse had some hair knocked off the inside of the left hind leg. He had obtained a statement (copy produced) from Mrs Dalgety giving her version, of the accident. It was attributed, in her opin- ’ ion, to the horse shying in front of the car. Mies McAulay was driving,

but Mrs Dalgety had control of all

except the wheel. 'Witness said he secured a statement from Miss McAulay. She had stated therein that Mrs Dalgety had placed her hand on the wheel, when approaching the horseman. The car struck the horse, and the man was thrown over the horse’s shoulder. Mrs Dalgety had called out “brake,” but the driver could not state whether she had put her foot on the brake or not. Mrs Dalgety had stopped the car by applying the hand brake. Opening the case 'for the defence Mr Walton submitted argument contending that Mrs Dalgety was not controlling or driving the car. Two persons could not drive one car. There was provision in the Act for a learner to have an experienced person beside for the purpose of giving tuition. K.; His Worship l said that he could not r- dismiss; the case against Mrs Dalgety

at this stage, but he recognised coun- - sei’s point.

Mr Walton outlined the evidence, to be given for the defence, and said it would go to prove that the horse had shied, and that the right-hand wheels, of the car were on .the grass. The car had struck the hind legs; of the horse, which had, as it were, s;at down on the car and then bounded forward, throwing the ride/over its shoulder, a factor being a stirrup leather which broke. Mr Epps’ injuries were due either to his own negligence or .to an inevitable accident. Counsel quoted a precedent, and contended that under .the circumstances, the accident was an inevitable one, no blame being attachable to the defendants, as they had taken reasonable care. Under examination by Mr Walton, Miss McAulay stated that she was, driving towards Ngatea at a speed be - tween 10 and 15 mileis- an hour. Seeing a horseman about 2% cU'vins ahead, she sounded the horn and the man k t.ked round. He 'was riding near thi side of the road, but as. the car approached the horse shied in front of it. Had .the horse not shied there would have been a space of over three feet between the car and the horse. The horse bounded forward when the car hit it, and Mr Epps was thrown over its, shoulder. She did not know whether she applied the brake or not. Mns- Dalgety had turned off the benzine and applied the hand brake. The car stopped about 12ft beyond where Mr Epps wasj lying. Mrs Dalgety was controlling the speed of the car and witness Was steering. The car did not strike the horse a second time.

To Constable Reilly defendant stated that while she did not know whether she applied .the footbrake she wasi sure that she did not press the accelerator. Her father did not know that she had taken the car. Mrs Mary Dalgety, sworn, stated that at Miss McAulay’s invitation s,he consented to go with her to give her confidence and show her the gears if necessary. It was Misis) McAulay’s wish that she control the speed by the hand throttle control. She had taken hold of the wheel when passing Mr Epps, but had not had need, to exert any force. Had the horse _£Ot swerved the car would have passjed it safely. Had she been driving under the circumstances the result would have been the same. •

To Constable Reilly stated that Miss McAulay had fi'aifely driven 'past another car. She did not steer the car, and had only s|et> the levers to control the speed. She could have stopped the car immediately if necessary. She had. reported the accident to the police, but did not realise that by so doing she was aeqepting liability.

In reply to His Worship Mrs Dalgety said that Eppts' was; thrown over the horse’s shoulder. Her attention was then diverted to the controls, and on looking again she saw Mr Epps, lying on the road, apparently in the position he had fallen. She was quite sure he had not been sjtruck by the car.

Howard Dalgety stated that "when in his house after the accident Epps had said that the horse had shied and had swerved round into the car. He had attached no blame to anyone, but had commented that it was “just an accident, and all over so suddenly.” Donald Dalgety and W. G. Hayward stated that they w r ere presjent when Mr ..Epps was giving an account of the accident, and they corroborated the evidence of Howard Dalgety. To Constable Reilly W. G. Hayward stated that Mr Epps’ account was substantially the same as that given by him in, Court. Epps' had that the car had struck the horse twice.

George Crockford, garage manager, Ngatea, gave evidence concerning the statei of the car.

Summing up, His Worship said that in regard to the charge against Mrs Dalgety of driving without a license he would agree with Mr Walton that she was not driving at the time of the accident, but defendant had stated in evidence that she had driven the car on to the road; and alsjo to get assistance after the accident. The charge would therefore stand, and both defendants' would be convicted and fined, .the usual amount, £1 and costs.

In regard to the major charge of driving negligently His Worship said that he would agree with Mr Walton that two persons could not drive a car at the same time. There was no doubt that Miss McAulay. was in the driver’s seat and was therefore iesponsible. The charge against Mrs Dalgety would be disjnisfied. He felt bound to say that the evidence showed that she had done everything at the time of the accident that an experienced driver would do. Reviewing the facts of the case in the- final charge His Worship said that there was no doubt that Epp & was .aware of the approach of the car, and that his, horse had shied <so that the colMsion was due to it moving its hind quarters over the road. The question was what had happened next. From the . medical evidence there was no doubt that the car must have gone over Epps in the manner described in his, evidence. He could not have received such injuries; had he merely fallen off his horse and lain where he fell,. He was of opinion that Epps’ story was consistent with the doctor’s conclusions. The ladies might fully believe what they had said in evidence, but his, opinion of what had happened was, that on being hit the horse had bounded forward and Mrs Dalgety had called but “brake.” Miss McAulay, in her confusion, had accelerated,- and the car had hit the horse again. He was of opinion that the car Was not fully under the control of Miss McAulay at .the time of the accident- The fact that it was driven on the hand lever and not by the foot accelerator had to be taken into consideration, as no car driven thus could be said to be under proper control. However, there were degrees, of negligence, and in this case it was due to inexperience and was an error of judgment. She would be convicted and fined £3 and costs (£3 12s 6d), and he would point out the danger of driving on the narrow roads of the Plains without a certificate of competence.