SERVICE CAR SMASH

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 2, Issue 256, 21 June 1932, Page 4

SERVICE CAR SMASH

DRIVER IN COURT MAGISTRATE SAYS DANGEROUS. DRIVING CHARGE NOT PROVED GASE DISMISSED On the afternoon of May 17 a service car driven hy Willett Hollis struck the handrail of the Puarenga Bridge on the Rotorua-Whakatane Road and plunged into the stre'am with its load of passengers. The handr rail of the bridge was completely torn away and the car damaged, but no one was seriously injured. The driver, who was a qualified, experienced man, could not account for the accident which occurred without the least warning. In the Rotorua Magistrate's Coui;t yesterday morning, Hollis was pro-' ceeded against on a charge of driving in a -manner dangerous to the public, Senior-Sergeant J. Carroll, who prosecuted, called, Mrs Dickson, who was, a witness of the accident. She statej$j that as she reached the bridge shq saw the car coming round the corner, and hurried across with her perambulator. After crossing, the car passed her so quiclcly that she turned round to watch its progress and saw it strike the bridge. She was well on her correct side and the car swerved over toward her and dashed into the bridge, Alfred Hugh Ward saw the car' passing at a fast pace. As it reached the flat it appeared to follow a zig-zag, course and then- he heard the crash into the bridge. An examination after the accident showed that the tracks. of the car came from the middle oi the road to the side of the bridgQ, Trees should keep the sun ont of a motorist's eyes when approaching the bridge To Mr. E. Roe, who represented Hollis, witness said the sun was shining at the time and the shadows were thrown half way over the bridge. Could Not Explain It Constable G. Roberts said he interviewed the driver shortly after the accident, but found he was not able to account for the occurrence. The bridge was 40 feet long and 12 feet 6 inches wide on the inside of the railings. He had known Hollis for some time as a careful driver. At this stage Sergeant Carroll said that passengers on the car had expressed the opinion that before the accident Hollis had shown himself to be a careful and efficient driver. Continuing Constable Roberts said it was quite possible that the sun had got in Hollis'. eyes. He was perfectly sober, and was a careful driver. No Case Mr. Roe said there were only two possible causes for the accident. Something extraordinary must have happened to Hollis, who had 18 years' experience as a driver, to cause him to swerve off the road and knock down the bridge. He could only think that the man was dazzled hy the light of the sun. The whole accident happened in a second. There might, also, have been a moment of unconsciousness. Sergeant Carroll had been good. enough to say that the passengers had declared that there was no evidence of negligence in Hollis' driving and he had brought them through well and carefully. So far as he could see there was no case of negligent driving to answer. If anything had been stated to show that the car was not under proper control he would not suggest that there was no negligence, but he submitted that the evidence of witnesses was decidedly sketchy. Senior-Sergeant Carroll pointed out that the fact that the driver had approached the bridge without even seeing the woman with the perambulator indicated that he had lost his bearings. The woman had had a narrow escape. The accident was certain- ' ly an unusual one, but if the car was fitted with a dazzle screen the driver should have used it before. It appeared that after coming a long way tha driver's vigilance had lapsed on a straight piece of road. The court held that there had been no lack of control or dangerous driving and dismissed the case.