ALLEGED NEGLIGENT DRIVING
DEATH OF VICTOR CHITTOCK
CAR DRIVER BEFORE COURT
At the Oamaru Magistrate’s Court, before Mr H. W. Bundle, S.M., yesterday afternoon, Charles Herbert Dobson appeared on the charge that he did negligently drive a motor car on June 4, thereby causing the death of Victor Chittock. Senior Sergeant McGregor conducted the prosecution for the police, and Mr H. J. S. Grater appeared for the accused.
Dr A. M. T. Dickie, house surgeon at the Oamaru Public Hospital, stated that Victor Chittock was admitted to the hospital on June 4 at 12.30 p.m. suffering from severe injuries to the head and face. There was a deep extensive wound between the eyes through the soft tissue and bone, exposing lacerated brain substance. He did not recover consciousness and died at 4.15 p.m. Death was due to cerebral laceration.
Constable R. J. Miller stated that he went to the intersection of Severn and Lune streets after the accident and saw Victor Chittock being placed in an ambulance. He saw the accused, whose car was standing in Lune street, facing a northerly direction on the wrong side of the road close to the north-eastern corner of the intersection. Chittock’s motor cycle was lying in Severn street facing south-west. Witness described finding a pool of blood and the door handle of the car, and a strip of grey-coloured clay which he found was very similar to the deposit of clay beneath the mudguards of the car. Witness also described the position of marks on the road and the taking of measurements. There were no signs of any skid or brake marks on the roadway at the scene of the accident. The accused informed the witness that he had put out his hand, indicating that he was going to make a right-hand turn. At that time he was on the correct side of the road and about a chain behind another car travelling in the same direction. He said his speed was about 20 miles per hour and just as he turned to go into Lune street he saw a motor cyclist approaching at high speed. It was then too late to do anything and the motor cyclist crashed into him. The witness pointed out to the accused that all marks on the road indicated that he had cut the corner and he replied that it did look a bit like it. Witness found the rod of the foot brake of the motor cycle was disconnected and tied up with wire. So far as he could find out, there was no licence for driving issued to Chittock nor was there a warrant of fitness for the motor cycle. There were no marks other than the clay on the road to show the point of impact.
Peter Laughton (traffic inspector) stated that he painted marks on the road indicating where the accident took place and assisted Constable Miller to take the measurements. He tested the brakes of the car, finding both foot and hand brakes were in good order. The foot brake was capable of stopping the car within 19 feet at a speed of 20 miles an hour.
Henry Frederick Chittock stated that Victor Chittock was his son and was a competent motor cycle rider, being a member of the motor cycle corps of the Oamaru Territorials. His eyesight and hearing were perfect.
Frank E. Greenbank stated that on June 3 Victor Chittock gave him a ride on the back of his motor cycle. They went down Wansbeck street, which is a steep incline as far as Tees street. Chittock rode the motor cycle down hill in top gear and appeared to have good control of his machine.
Evidence of taking photographs at the scene of the accident was given by Constable M. L. J. Thyne.
David K. Giffin gave evidence of damage to the car, including the left front door panelling broken and twisted, glass broken and handle missing. The front forks and wheel of the motor cycle were badly buckled, the rear forks twisted, and the frame out of alignment. The foot brake was disconnected and tied up with wire. The front brake was apparently in order prior to the motor cycle having been damaged.
J. G. McDonald stated that he was driving up Severn street, and when halfway over Lune street intersection a motor cyclist passed him travelling fairly fast. He noticed the motor cyclist was leaning over to his right as if attempting to swerve, and the witness then heard a crash. The witness went back and found the motor cyclist severely injured about the head. He saw a car facing north in Lune street. It had a large dent in the left front door, and the window was broken. When he first saw the motor cycle it was being driven well on the correct side of the road, and it maintained that position all the way down the hill until it passed the witness at the intersection.
David J. Crawley, who rushed to the scene immediately after the accident, gave evidence of the collision and the removal of the injured man to the hospital. He did not notice either of the motor vehicles until after the accident had happened. Rita Mary Moyle stated that as she watched the car and the motor cycle she could see that an accident would probably happen. The vehicles mci and collided at the north-east corner of the intersection. She could not estimate the speed of the motor cycle, but considered there was not much difference between the speeds of the cycle and the car. The motor cyclist was well on his correct side of the road until he collided with the car.
Ronald Stevenson also gave evidence of seeing Victor Chittock travelling down Severn street on the motor cycle well on the correct side of the road, his speed being about 20 miles an hour. He heard a crash, and went back to the scene of the accident.
Wilfred J. Davies stated that he heard a crash, and on looking up he saw the motor cycle falling away from the rear of the car. He found the motor cyclist lying on the road with his legs under his machine. He was badly injured about the head, and was bleeding profusely. He rendered first aid, and conveyed the injured man to hospital in the ambulance.
This concluded the evidence for the prosecution.
Mr Grater applied for a dismissal of the information on the grounds that the evidence showed the collision occurred between the accused’s car and the motor cycle ridden by the unfortunate boy Chittock, and that Chittock was an unlicensed driver, and there was no warrant of fitness for the cycle. The foot brake was out of action, and the police plan showed that the impact occurred in such a place that, had the cyclist had the cycle under reasonable control, he had ample room to pass around the rear of the car. He submitted that on the evidence there was no prima facie case to answer.
Senior Sergeant McGregor submitted that there was ample evidence to commit the accused for trial. The evidence showed that the accused had cut the corner. Had he been keeping a proper look-out instead of travelling behind another car and shooting out and cutting the corner, the collision would not have taken place.
Mr Bundle commented that it was not for the court to discuss the evidence. In his opinion, there was a prima facie case to answer.
The accused pleaded not guilty and reserved his defence, and was committed to stand trial at the next sitting of the Supreme Court at Dunedin, bail being allowed in his own recognsiance of £100 and one surety of £100.
CORONER’S INQUEST
A coroner’s inquest touching the death of Victor Chittock was held before Mr A. W. Woodward (coroner) yesterday. Mr A. R. Tait appeared for the relatives of the deceased, and after hearing evidence on similar lines to that given in the court, the coroner adjourned the inquest sine die. -Otago Daily Times, 20/7/1938.
SUPREME COURT
CRIMINAL SESSIONS CONTINUED
ALLEGED NEGLIGENT DRIVING
SEQUEL TO MOTOR CYCLIST'S DEATH (abridged)
Charles Herbert Dobson, an engineer, of Oamaru, was charged in the Supreme Court before Mr Justice Kennedy yesterday with negligently driving a car so as to cause the death of Victor Chittock. Mr F. B. Adams (Crown Prosecutor) conducted the case for the Crown, and the accused was represented by Mr C. J. L. White, instructed by Messrs Ongley and Grater
Mr Adams, addressing the jury, said the issue was a simple one. There was only one question to be decided. Was the accident caused by negligence on the part of the accused, or was it not? Counsel submitted that in criminal cases the defence of contributory negligence was not open. The point was whether the accused was negligent or whether the deceased was wholly negligent and thus caused the accident. Only if the deceased were entirely to blame could his negligence be used as a defence. It might be suggested that the deceased was riding a machine with only one brake, but there was nothing to show that that had been the cause of the accident Counsel reviewed the evidence dealing with the positions if the two vehicles and submitted that there was nothing to show that the motor cyclist had swerved at all from the straight line he was taking. On the other hand, however, the accused did cut the corner. His own explanation of the accident was that he was too near the north-east corner when he saw the motor cyclist coming. It was then too late for him to do anything about it. He might have given a signal that he was going to turn, but he should still have turned at the right spot. Moreover, the accused had no right to make a turn until he was satisfied that the road was clear.
Mr White said that as there was no suggestion of intoxication the question was whether, in the first place, there was negligence; and secondly, whether that negligence caused the death of Chittock. If the jury believed that the deceased's negligence caused his own death, they must acquit the accused. That was the crux of the whole affair. It did not necessarily follow that a breach of regulations constituted negligence; in such a case every circumstance had to be taken into account. There was nothing to show where the accused commenced to make his turn and began to cut the corner. That was the weakness of the Crown's case. It was the deceased who crashed into the car, not the other way about, and that was a point in the accused's favour. Counsel asked the jury to remember the attraction and intoxication of speed for young men when they found a powerful motor cycle between their legs. Then there was the fact that the accused's car was in perfect mechanical conditior., whereas the motor cycle had only one brake, and that was a hand-brake, which did not operate on the driving wheel. Moreover, there was nothing to show whether the hand-brake was working, because the front wheel and forks were so badly buckled and bent. Counsel submitted that the one thing lacking in the Crown's case was proof, and warned the jury against convicting a man on a serious criminal charge on supposition.
After his Honor had summed up, the jury retired at 5.30, and returned 15 minutes later with a verdict of not guilty. Dobson was discharged. -Otago Daily Times, 19/10/1938.
Oamaru Cemetery.
No comments:
Post a Comment