NEGLIGENCE ALLEGED.
VAN DRIVER FOR TRIAL
(By Telegraph. — Press Association.) DUNEDIN, this day.
George Conway Edwards, a farmer, was committed for trial on a charge of negligently driving a motor van and causing the death of Charles Edward Cook, who was riding a bicycle when a collision occurred on May 28. The police alleged negligence in cutting a corner and failing to keep a proper lookout. -Auckland Star, 18/7/1934.
MOTORIST ON TRIAL
ALLEGATIONS OF NEGLIGENCE
SEQUEL TO STREET FATALITY
Before His Honour Mr Justice Kennedy, in the Supreme Court yesterday afternoon. George Conway Edwards appeared for trial on a charge of negligently driving a motor vehicle on May 28, so as to cause the death of Charles Edward Cook.
The accused, who was represented by Mr Warrington Taylor, pleaded not guilty.
Mr F. B. Adams tCrowu. Prosecutor conducted the case for the Crown.
Mr Adams said the accused was the driver of a motor lorry on the Anderson's Bay road, and was making his turn into Wharf street when a cyclist collided with the side of the accused’s vehicle and was killed. The cyclist could not have seen the lorry. The accused, in his statement to the police, said he did not sound his horn, although he saw the cyclist coming. It seemed to be a case of a life being saved if the accused had given a warning blast of his horn. It was incumbent upon the accused to warn the deceased. This he had not done. The standard of care insisted upon in those controlling motor vehicles was necessarily a high one, and he would like to point out that the responsibility for keeping this standard at a high level rested largely with the country’s jurors. If they were satisfied at the conclusion of the case that there had been a dereliction of duty, they must convict the accused. They were not asked to find gross negligence, but merely from the simple evidence that would be tendered, to determine whether all necessary care had been taken by the accused to avoid an accident.
John Redvers James Ashton, a gardener, said he knew the deceased, and had seen him on the afternoon of May 28. He was then in good health, and sober. Witness lent deceased a rake, and tied it to the top bar of his bicycle. As far as witness knew, the accused’s eyesight was not seriously defective, although he wore glasses. The bicycle and rake produced in court were those which the deceased had in his possession when he left witness. The bicycle was a borrowed one.
To Mr Taylor: Cook’s own cycle had different handle bars from those on the bicycle produced. Witness tied the rake on the cycle for the deceased. The handle bars on the cycle produced would be a good deal lower than those on Cook’s own bicycle.
Henry Louis Paterson, surveyor, produced a plan of the intersection of Anderson’s Bay road and Wharf street. It was an accurate plan, showing the exact angle at which Wharf street joins the Anderson’s Bay road. Witness visited the scene of the accident on the following day and observed a dark stain on the pavement which he took to be blood. The distance from the mark to the kerb was 10ft 2in. Witness gave evidence of other measurements and distances recorded by him.
Detective-sergeant Doyle said he was an eye-witness of the accident, which gave rise to the charge. He saw a motor truck cutting a corner as it turned into Wharf street. The driver did not maintain his position to the left of the centre line of the road out of which he was turning. By failing to do so he broke the regulation with regard to “cutting a corner.” Witness noticed a cyclist coming towards Anderson’s Bay road. He was clearly visible to witness, and visibility was bright. The cyclist was riding towards the rear side of the truck with which he finally collided, being thrown violently forward. The upper portion of his body seemed to .strike about the driver’s seat. He was then thrown back on to the road. The back wheel of the truck did not pass over deceased's body. When witness went to the injured man he found him suffering from a gaping wound on the jaw. He appeared to be lifeless. After the collision the truck proceeded for about 10ft into Wharf street and then stopped. A portion of a garden rake was still tied to the bicycle, but a length of handle had been broken off. There was blood streaming from the wound and running into the channel. Witness measured the distance between the blood and the kerb, and found it to be 10ft 2in. The truck's wheel tracks were visible at the time of the accident. Witness pointed out to the accused at the time that he had cut the corner, but the accused made no reply. There was no other traffic about and as far as witness could see there was nothing to obscure the accused’s view of the cyclist. There were marks on the truck to indicate where the deceased had struck the vehicle, and his hat and spectacles were inside the truck. The cyclist just prior to the collision was sitting upright on his bicycle. The truck and the bicycle seemed to be going about the same speed in his opinion about ten to twelve miles per hour. Witness heard no sound of a warning blast from the horn of the truck.
To Mr Taylor witness said the deceased’s injuries, would probably have been less serious had he struck a flat surface on the truck instead of a projection. Witness saw no marks that would indicate that the cyclist had applied his brakes. There was no doubt in his mind that it was the cyclist who collided with the truck. Witness understood that the accused had had no previous convictions with respect to driving.
At this stage the court adjourned until this morning. -Evening Star, 25/7/1934.
NEGLIGENCE NOT PROVED
VAN DRIVER ACQUITTED
Fatal collision at wharf street.
A verdict of not guilty was returned in the Supreme Court to-day on the charge against George Conway Edwards of, on May 28, negligently driving a motor van so as to cause the death of Charles Edward Cook. The fatal accident occurred at the corner of Wharf street and Anderson’s Bay road.
Mr Justice Kennedy presided, and the accused, who had pleaded not guilty, was represented by Mr W. M. Taylor. Mr F. B. Adams (Crown Prosecutor) conducted the Crown’s case. The hearing of evidence commenced yesterday.
Evidence was given by Detective J. C. Russell (a passenger in Detective-sergeant Doyle’s car), and Dr W. B. Hiett (a house surgeon at the Dunedin Hospital), and James Erie McFall (an engine driver who followed the van into Wharf street). The last witness said he was not prepared to swear that he heard the horn sounded as the van made the turn.
Constable Holder read a statement in which the accused admitted that he did not sound his horn before turning, and claimed that he entered the intersection on the middle of the road.
Addressing the jury, Mr Adams said there was no evidence that the accused should not have seen the cyclist, in fact, accused did see the deceased at a distance of 30ft, and the duty was incumbent on the accused to watch the cyclist, as, if the courses were held, a collision was imminent. Edwards knew that, from a distance of 30ft to 2ft away the cyclist had not seen him. A single touch of the horn button would have saved the cyclist’s life. It was a moral and legal duty of the driver to give a warning or even to have pulled up. A man who would not take such a precaution to save life was guilty of negligent driving. To see an elderly man in the dock on such a charge was unpleasant, but they should remember that the standard of driving on the loads depended on the verdict of juries.
Mr Taylor, in his address, first drew His Honour’s attention to a case (Canning V. the King), on which he relied as his authority on the law of cutting a corner.
His Honour said he knew the case, as he was engaged in it.
Mr Taylor said gross negligence was failure to exercise reasonable care, it the jury were satisfied that the accused used reasonable care they should acquit him. There were thirty-two pages of motor regulations, and the accused would have been super-human it he had observed every regulation. He was not required to take every precaution that was humanly possible. As to cutting the corner, the corner was wide, and an open view was presented down Wharf street, on which there was no trafflic with which accused could collide. He had not been negligent in cutting the comer, for the marks of traffic showed that the average reasonable man cut the corner when turning into Wharf street. By doing so, the accused did not make matters any more difficult for the cyclist, who was given a greater opportunity of seeing the van and or avoiding the collision than if the van had been on its correct side. Further, he submitted that the real cause of the accident was the failure of the cyclist to observe the truck, into the side of which he rode. Deceased was riding a strangle cycle, and the low handle bars would cause his position to be such that the low-brimmed hat would shade his eyes. A rake was protruding in trout of the cycle. The evidence was that the deceased did not swerve, but rode into the truck. Counsel submitted that the accident would have still happened it the accused had been on his right side of the road. The accused used every care. He was driving at an extremely low speed, and put out his hand to indicate that he was turning into Wharf street. The mere fact that he did not see the cyclist at the earliest opportunity was not negligence, as one of the police witnesses had not see a cyclist following the course of the van. The accused was legally entitled to assume that the cyclist would observe a watch to avoid danger. The slightest swerve on the part of the cyclist would have taken him behind the truck. They were not dealing with a reckless driver; but a man who drove with care. The accused was charged, not with a breach of the regulations, but with a serious crime, on which, counsel submitted, the evidence was abundantly clear to warrant an acquittal.
After His Honour had summed up, the jury retired at 11.45 a.m., and returned at 12.20 p.m. with a verdict of not guilty.
The prisoner was discharged. -Evening Star, 25/7/1934.
Northern Cemetery, Dunedin.
