NEGLIGENT DRIVING.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXIX, Issue 5270, 4 May 1928, Page 2

NEGLIGENT DRIVING.

APPEAL AGAINST LOCAL FINDING-

DECISION UPHELD.

The appeal of J. E. Davis against a conviction for. negligently driving a motor-car in the Borough of Paeroa,' which was entered by Mr T. W. Platts, S.M., on December 5 in. a, prosecution brought by the Paeroa Borough Council, was heard at the Supreme Court, Auckland, before Mr Justice McGregor yesterday. A number of facts were admitted by both sides, including the fact that Davis drove his car along Thames Road at a speed of 34 miles an hour ; also that the road was obviously a new construction, and that the appellant had control of his car. The witnesses were His worship the Mayor and T. Bardsley, traffic inspector. The Mayor was examined at some length, and the giib of his evidence was. that the road was newlyconstructed ; that hoti’ces were posted asking motorists to drive slowly over the new work ; that heavy, slow-mov-ing vehicles would tend to consolidate new metalling, whila faslHmoving vehicles would disintegrate the surface and distort the true alignment; that on the day in question excessively fast traffic damaged the road surface to an unreasonable degree. The appellant, while admitting the speed, claimed that it was not unrea-i sonable ; that negligence could not in fact be ascribed to an act which might damage a road surface, but that to negligently drive a motor-car iniplied negligence towards some person or persons.

His Honour, held, however, that motorists 'had a duty to see that their use of the roads was such that no unreasonable damage was done to the road; that a failure to exercise pro-’ per care towards the property of the corporation constituted neglect. He pointed out that Mr Justice Herdman had recently held that a local authority had power to legislate to protect its’.roadi surfaces. His, Honbur found that the offence complained of did come .within by-l’afw 15 of part 8 of the Paeroa Borough By-laws; . that damage had been caused to the road surface, and that appellant, by driving his car at a speed of 34 miles an hour, had contributed to this damage. The magistrate’s decision was accordingly upi held and the appeal dismissed with costs. .

Interviewed on the matter, the •Mayor expressed the opinion that the decision was a most important one, and that it would probably have farreaching effect and be of gre.at value to local bodies, it had now been dei finitely decided by the Supreme Court that local bodies had power to legislate by by-Jaw to; protect its streets and roads, and that if unreasonable damage was done to its streets the act of so doing was; an offence within the meaning of the. by-law which says. “No person,shall . . . negligently drive a motor-car through any street . . . in the borough.” ■ The council, therefore, had the power and the machinery, supported, by the Courts, to protect the work recently done out of loan moneys., and if it failed; to do so it would be entirely its own fault. Doubtlessly the, same conditions existed with many other local authorities, and the decision should prove' most useful to ratepayers* interests. ■All who 'have the interest of wise and s.ound government ait heart will .agree that the decision in this case is good for Paeroa generally.. There is genuine need for the exercise of strict control in all matters coming within the council’s jurisdiction, and in particular the interests of the ratepayers. —who have to “foot the bill” for the loan out of which street improvement work 'has been done—must be protected. ' ,