ANOTHER MOTOR FATALITY.
(By Telegraph. — Press Association.) this day.
On Sunday morning Mr. Bartholomew Lynch, traveller for J. G. Ward and Co., in company with Mr. James Macintosh, of the same firm, were crossing a narrow bridge in the Fortrose district, when their motor car went over and capsized in the bed of a creek, ten feet below. Mr. Macintosh escaped with a shaking, but Mr. Lynch, exclaiming "I'm done!" expired. Deceased was aged 35. He leaves a widow and one child. -Auckland Star, 7/1/1913.
THE MOTOR FATALITY
INQUEST ON BARTHOLOMEW LYNCH.
VERDICT OF ACCIDENTAL DEATH.
The sad story connected with the accidental death of Bartholomew Lynch at the Mataura Island bridge last Sunday was the subject of a coronial inquiry yesterday. Owing to the absence of the District Coroner (Mr G. Cruickshank), from town when the body was brought in, the inquest was conducted by Mr W. B. Scandrett, J.P.. and the following jury was empanneled: — A. Ferguson (Foreman), S. Ritchie, James Sangster, Wm. Hall, Wm. Day, and Wm. R. Petrie. Sergeant Simpson represented the police and Mr Wm. Macalister appeared for the Southland County Council. The relatives of the deceased were represented by Mr O’Beirne.
Daniel Lynch, signalman, in the employ of the N.Z. Railways, said that the deceased was his brother, and a traveller for J. G. Ward and Co. He was about 35 years of age, and was a married man with one child.
James Mackintosh, accountant to J. G. Ward and Co., deposed that with the deceased he left Invercargill at 8.15 a.m. on Sunday in a motor car. Lynch was driving, and when approaching the Mataura Island bridge they negotiated a very acute turn. As they ran on to the bridge witness noticed that the rail on the left-hand side going east was broken, and left a very ugly drop open. There was a slight fall from the road to the bridge, and the car was running a little quicker than it would have done on another bridge. There was only about a foot of space on either side of the car, and the opinion of the witness was that deceased became a little nervous and steered the car to the right to keep clear of the gap created by the broken rail. As a result the car came into contact with the rail on the right, and broke it. A wire ran along the side of the bridge, and the car caught on this, turning a complete somersault and throwing both witness and deceased out. There was a drop of about fifteen feet. Witness had a marvellous escape. He rose to his feet at once and saw Lynch lying a few feet away. The latter said. “I'm done.” Witness ran to him only to see him die at once. He at once went for assistance and Dr Baird was in attendance shortly afterwards. At no time previously had witness been out with the deceased in the motor car, but he knew that he had only recently learned to drive a car. The road where the accident occurred would require a skilful driver to negotiate. The barrier at the side of the bridge consisted, as near as he could remember, of a rail on top and two fencing wires.
To Mr O’Beirne; There was no notice near the bridge notifying drivers that it was dangerous. It was not, he thought, meant for heavy traffic.
Mr O'Belrne: How deep was the ford underneath?
Witness: I do not know.
Mr O’Beirne: Would there be a foot of water in it?
Witness: There may have been.
Mr O’Beirne: Could the car go through a foot of wat
er. Witness: I really do not know. Some cars can, and others can not.
Proceeding under examination the witness said that he had not time to observe whether the bridge shook when the car went on to it. The object of the trip was pleasure alone. The deceased was not on duty when he was driving the car on Sunday; they both arranged to go for a run. He had not been driving very much more than a week, and had been out only on two or three trips.
Mr O’Beirne: What do you attribute the accident to?
Witness: I think that it was due to his becoming nervous at the rail being down.
Mr O’Beirne: Had the rail been up would you consider that bridge a safe one to cross with a motor car?
Witness: No; I would not.
Mr O’Beirne: Do you think the railing is substantial enough to prevent a car from going over?
Witness: No. Under further examination the witness said that he did not know the condition o he stream in winter.
To Mr Macalister: The witness did not know, prior to the accident, that it was a stock bridge and not meant for vehicular traffic. It was, he agreed, a matter of common knowledge that the railings were not meant to keep vehicles from going over, but there were some bridges where the railings were strong enough to serve that purpose.
Mr Macalister: He was an inexperienced driver?
Witness: I cannot say that be was experienced, but many experienced drivers would have been unnerved in a similar situation.
The bridge, said the witness, was at right angles with the road approach.
Mr Macalister: This is just one of those unfortunate accidents, and you do not suggest that anyone was to blame?
Witness: No. I do not think anyone was to blame.
To the foreman of the jury the witness said that it was possible for cars to get through the ford, but he was led to understand that 90 per cent, of the cars travelling the road used the bridge.
Re-examined by Mr Macalister the witness said that Lynch had previously crossed the bridge on a motor bicycle and he himself had crossed it in a motor car.
B. Basstian, County Engineer, gave evidence to the effect that the main road through Mataura Island crossed a backwater by a ford running diagonally across the back-water. The bridge on which the accident occurred was not on the main road. It was some distance from it, and could be reached by going along the bank of the back-water if the ford were too deep in times of flood. Originally the bridge was built for a footbridge, and at a later date was widened to make it a stock bridge. It was never intended for vehicular traffic. Had it been intended for that purpose wheel guards would have been provided. He understood that when the back-water was flooded by the Mataura river the bridge was used by milk carts and light traffic. There would, he considered, be no difficulty in motor cars crossing the ford. He had last seen the ford on the previous afternoon and there was then about six inches of water in it. So far as he knew there had never been any request by the ratepayers or the public to have the bridge altered.
Mr O'Beirne; Why did the Council put gates on the bridge some few years ago?
Witness: I do not know the reason, but presume they were put there for use in driving stock.
Mr O'Beirne; Why were they taken away?
Witness: I suppose because they were of no use.
Mr O’Beirne: Do you think the bridge is safe for a motor car to cross?
Witness: I think it is safe for an ordinary, careful and competent man, but you cannot go on to it rapidly or carelessly.
Mr O'Beirne: Don't you think it necessary to warn people from crossing the bridge?
Witness: The question has never cropped up before.
Mr O’Beirne: Will a warning notice be put up now?
Witness: I do not know that it will, because it can be seen that it is not an ordinary traffic bridge. It is seven feet eight inches in width, and about 160 feet long. An ordinary motor car is about five feet three inches over all in width.
To the Acting Coroner: By his statedment that vehicles could cross by either the ford or the bridge he did not mean that they were entitled to cross the bridge, but merely that they did so at times.
The jury returned a verdict that the« deceased met his death accidentally through a fall from a motor car, no blame being attachable to anyone. -Southland Times, 31/1/1913.
No comments:
Post a Comment