RECENT MOTOR COLLISION.

Shannon News, 14 February 1922, Page 3

RECENT MOTOR COLLISION.

CHARGE OF NEGLIGENCE DISMISSED

At the Palmerston. Court yesterday, David. E. Porter (Mr Oram) pleaded not guilty to a charge of. negligent driving on the night of December -m. Harry Byers, of Shannon, said it.a. 011 the night in question, when ;u.out a mile from Shannon, he saw a car approaching. The lights on the ear were dimmed and witness dimmed his own lights. When only 10 or 15 yards separated the cars defendant’s car swerved suddenly and crashed into the car driven by witness, with the result that considerable damage was done. When defendant stepped out of his car he appeared to be very much muddled.

To Mr Oram: Witness had been driving for about six months and had only driven 011 about 12 occasions at night. The dimming apparatus on witness’s car- was slightly out of order, since the lights might come on fully again if lie did not keep a linger on the switch. Witness was on his correct side of the road all the way. To Senior-Sergeant Fraser: Witness switched his lights on lully when defendant swerved over the road, but previously they had been dimmed. Mrs Byers, wife of the previous witness, corroborated his evidence.

After further evidence had been heard, Mr Oram submitted that tne accident was due to the inexperience of Byers in driving, and also because the dimming gear was out of order. Defendant, on being sworn, said lie was dazzled by Byers’ lights, which were not- dimmed all the time, but went on and off before the cars collided. Witness signalled to Byers twice in the hope that he wouM dim his lights properly'. Next day both Byers and his wife admitted to witness that the dimming switch was out of order and that it was difficult to keep the lights dimmed unless a huger was kept on the switch. To Senior-Sergeant Fraser: Witness was dazzled by the lights on Byers’ car. He denied that he swerved over tbe road. Witness also denied having taken any liquor on the night in question.

In dismissing the information, the Magistrate said the evidence showed that both cars were on the correct side of the road. Byers said that defendant swerved and he . (Byers) turned his lights on to see where he was going. Obviously this was the wrong thing to do. The suggestion that defendant was under the influence oi' liquor was not substantiated and could not be upheld. It could not he said that drink was the cause of the accident. The conclusion was reasonable, that Bver.s, being an inexperienced driver, became nervous. Defendant said he was dazzled by Byeis’ lights., and there was good reason to believe this. The accident must have occurred because defendant was dazzled. Byers should not have let his lighis go Oil. Dazzling lights were the cause of a great number of accidents. At all events it seemed clear that a man who had seen a car approaching would not swerve at the last moment right into its track unless he was dazzled.