MOTORIST FINED

Southland Times, Issue 21092, 26 May 1930, Page 11

MOTORIST FINED

FALLS ASLEEP AT WHEEL. NOVEL DEFENCE OF NO AVAIL. (Per United Press Association.) Blenheim, May 23. A novel and interesting defence was set ur> by Mr A. A. Mac Nab in- the Magistrate's Court at Picton when he appeared for Mervyn Albert Bary, who pleaded not guilty to driving a motor car on the Blen-heim-Picton Road on April 25 in a negligent manner which, having regard to all the circumstances, might have been dangerous to the public. The prosecution was a sequel to an accident when defendant’s car crashed into a couple of huts on the side of the BlenheimPicton highway. Counsel said he understood that the case for the police would disclose that defendant made a statement to the police that he nodded at the wheel and in that second, swerved to one side and hit an obstacle that was placed on the road. No one was injured, but notwithstanding that fact, Bary reported the matter to the police and made a full statement. Counsel submitted that for a man to drive negligently there must be some conscious act on his part. He did not mean deliberate intention to drive negligently, but there must be some conscious act which caused, or was negligence. If a man momentarily nodded to sleep if suddenly overcome by something over which he had nd control, he could not be guilty of negligence. It was analagous with a man taken with an epileptic fit. In that case the driver would not be guilty of negligence unless, as was the case with some epileptics, he had warning of the fit coming on. It was absurd to suggest that a driver would willingly succumb to sleep at the wheel.

Counsel said he could trace no other case in which a man had been prosecuted for negligence because he had momentarily fallen asleep. In deciding to enter a conviction, the Magistrate said it was clear that the fact of defendant going to sleep caused the accident. “It may be that in the event of a person suffering from some sudden physical infirmity that results in his car getting out of control, it could not be said to be negligence,” he added. “This is not a case of physical infirmity. The man went to sleep. If I accept that as the defence and dismiss the information, then apparently I shall in effect be holding that it is quite permissible for the driver of a car to go to sleep and let his car get out of control. That being so, I should be nothing more or less than a contributory factor towards highways becoming dangerous places. I am not disposed to take that course. If People drive cars, they must keep awake. If they go to sleep, they do so at their own peril.” A fine of £2 and costs was inflicted.