KNOCKED DOWN BY CAR.
PEDESTRIAN KILLED.
(By Telegraph. — Press Association.) TIMARU, Sunday,
As a result of being struck by a motor car late last evening Mr. Frederick John Kaye, a hairdresser, was killed. Deceased attempted to run across the road in front of the car, but he was struck heavily, suffering severe head injuries. He died a few minutes later. -Auckland Star, 6/4/1931.
VIADUCT FATALITY.
YOUNG MAN’S DEATH.
INQUEST OPENED YESTERDAY.
An inquest was opened at Timaru yesterday concerning the death of Frederick John Kaye, 22 years of age, who died a few minutes after a collision with a motor car driven by John Garland Keith Cliff, while he was crossing Stafford Street near the Bay Viaduct on Saturday night. Mr A. L. Gee, J.P., acted as Coroner, and the jury comprised Messrs Alexander Robertson (foreman), Alfred H. Wyatt, Edward Budd and Francis Matthews. Senior-Sergeant Mathieson conducted the inquiry for the police and Mr A. D. McRae appeared for the driver of the car.
Evidence of identification was given by Frederick Chalmers Kaye, father of deceased, who said he had last seen his son on the afternoon of the accident, when he was in good health. Deceased’s eyesight was not good, and he had been compelled to wear glasses. His son was a hairdresser by trade, but was unemployed at the time of the accident. Witness was aware that deceased had attended a wedding celebration on Saturday evening, but did not know why his son should have been in the vicinity of the Viaduct, unless it was for the purpose of meeting friends at the Bay dance.
To Mr McRae: His son must have been short sighted if he wore glasses.
Dr. C. A. Paterson, who attended deceased at the scene of the accident, said he found deceased lying in a pool of blood on the footpath. He was already dead. He had a depressed compound fracture of the right frontal bone, causing laceration of the brain. Deceased’s injuries were consistent with his having been knocked down by a motor car. When witness arrived at the scene, deceased had been dead only a minute or two. The cause of death was laceration of the brain, as a result of a compound fracture of the skull.
The inquest was then adjourned until Friday next, when further evidence is to be taken. -Timaru Herald, 7/4/1931.
ACCIDENTAL DEATH.
VIADUCT FATALITY.
CORONER'S INQUEST.
The adjourned inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the death of Frederick John Kaye, aged 27 years, who was killed close to the Caroline Bay viaduct on Saturday, April 4th, at 11.45, as the result of a motor accident, was resumed in the Timaru Police Court yesterday, before Mr A. L. Gee, J.P., and the following jurymen: — Messrs A. Robertson (foreman), F. Matthews, A. H. Wyatt, and E. Budd. Senior-Sergeant Mathieson appeared for the Police Department, and Mr A. D. McRae, for J. G. K. Cliff, driver of the car.
Driver Quite Sober. John Patrick O’Leary stated that on April 4th in the evening, he was standing outside the viaduct at Caroline Bay. He was close to the telegraph pole which was close to the entrance to the viaduct. He saw a car going north from Stafford Street into Evans Street. It was travelling at from 20 to 25 miles an hour. The headlights were burning, but he did not hear the horn sounded. It was running on the correct side of the road. The driver was the only occupant of the car. He knew deceased, who was running from the Bay Service Station on the corner of Hewlings and Stafford Streets towards the north side of the viaduct. It appeared to witness that Kaye ran into the motor car. Witness said he had a fair view of everything from his position. Another car had previously gone up the hill, and was about 50 yards away when the accident occurred. When he heard the crash he ran across and examined the wounds on deceased’s head. He picked Kaye up, and by this time the driver of the car came back, and two other men assisted to carry the injured man to the side of the road. Witness knew the driver of the car; his name was John Garland Keith Cliff. He was quite sober.
The Foreman; "Could you see clearly?”
Witness: "Yes. It was a clear night and visibility was pretty good.”
Mr McRae: "You knew that Kaye wore glasses?” — "Yes.” "Could you say if his eyesight was defective?” — “All I know is that he wore glasses.”
The Coroner: "Was he running across the road in a normal way, or was he acting peculiarly when running across?” — "He was just running across.”
Car on Right Side. Constable Devine stated that at 11.55 p.m. on April 4th he was informed that a man had been killed at the Bay viaduct. He went to investigate, and there found the deceased lying on the footpath on the east side of Stafford Street, apparently dead. Deceased had a large wound on the right side of the forehead. His face and hands were covered with blood, and there were two large pools of blood — one on a seat nearby, and the other on the footpath. Dr. Paterson arrived on the scene and pronounced life to be extinct. Witness had the body removed to the morgue.
The Foreman: “You consider the car was on the right side of the road?” Witness: "Oh, yes.” "And he was perfectly sober?” — “Yes, I saw him.”
Cliff’s Evidence. John Garland Keith Cliff, 21 years of age, stated that he resided at 153 Evans Street, and was employed at the Waitaki Hydro Electric Works. At 11.45 p.m. on April 4th he left the Grand Hotel, driving in his car on his way home. He travelled at between 20 and 25 miles an hour. Approaching the intersection of the viaduct he sounded his horn. He did not see any other traffic there, and he was driving on the correct side of the street. His headlights were in good working order, and he had a clear view. As he got to the intersection he glanced to the right to see if anyone was coming, and on looking to the front again he saw a man about a yard from the car. The man appeared to run right into the side of the car. His head hit the wind screen and his shoulder hit the door. Witness pulled up about 25ft. from the impact, and came back to where deceased was lying, with O’Leary bending over him. When deceased hit the car he appeared to drop right down. Witness immediately rang for a doctor. He knew deceased, and also knew that he wore glasses. Witness had been driving a car for two years, and this was the first accident he had had.
To the Foreman; “Deceased did not call out when he was struck. There was no possible chance of pulling up when he first saw deceased.”
To Mr Budd: “He did not know where deceased came from. The first he saw of him was when he struck the car.”
The Verdict. Without retiring, the jury returned a verdict that it was a case of accidental death, no blame being attachable to the driver of the car. -Timaru Herald, 11/4/1931.
COMPENSATION CLAIM.
DEATH OF YOUNG MAN.
ECHO OF ACCIDENT.
A claim for £200 compensation, arising out of the death of Frederick John Kaye, who was killed by being struck by a car near the Bay Viaduct shortly before midnight on Saturday, April 4th, was heard by Mr C. R. Orr-Walker, S.M., in the Timaru Magistrate’s Court, yesterday. The driver of the car was John Garland Keith Cliff, carpenter, of Evans Street, Timaru, who was the defendant in the action, and the plaintiff was Frederick Chalmers Kaye, father of the deceased.
Plaintiff alleged that the defendant had been travelling at an excessive speed, and at a greater speed than that allowed by the Motor Regulations, and the by-laws of the Timaru Borough Council, at the place where the accident occurred. It was further alleged that defendant had not kept a proper outlook, that he did not blow his horn prior to crossing the intersection of Stafford Street North and Hewlings Street, as required by the regulations and by-laws. It was also alleged that defendant, by the exercise of ordinary care, could have avoided the accident.
Mr F. J. Rolleston appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr W. F. Tracy, of Christchurch, appeared for the defendant.
Mr Rolleston said the action was brought under the Deaths by Accident Compensation Act. Deceased was killed at 11.45 p.m. on Saturday, April 4th. Some importance attached to the date, because it was full moon, and visibility would have been good. The corner where the accident occurred, the intersection of Stafford and Hewlings Street, was a particularly dangerous one, so much so that the local authority had taken every step to protect the public by signs in the day-time, and by lights at night. After outlining the grounds of alleged negligence, Mr Rolleston proceeded to call evidence.
Constable J. Devlin said that on Easter Saturday night he was on duty. At 11.55 he was informed that a man had been killed at the Bay Viaduct. He proceeded to the scene, and found deceased lying on the footpath. A doctor was called, and he pronounced life extinct. About an hour later, witness took measurements at the spot where the accident occurred. The distance from the point of impact to the kerbside was 23 feet 3 inches. The distance from the petrol station in Hewlings Street to the telegraph pole on the corner of the footpath was approximately 20 yards. The corner where the accident occurred was well lighted. He could not say definitely whether the moon was shining at the time of the accident, but he recalled that later the moon was shining.
To Mr Tracey: The car, according to the marks, was on its correct side. The driver, when interviewed, was quite sober. On the night in question a dance was in progress in the Bay Hall. It was true that occasionally cars came up through the Viaduct, despite the fact that it was a one-way traffic thoroughfare.
Charles H. Newcome, Borough Traffic Inspector, said that there was a caution sign on a telegraph post near the Viaduct. It was erected about three years ago, and was clearly visible both day and night. It was erected on account of the peculiar formation of the intersection, and also on account of the great amount of traffic at the spot. Signs were also erected on the Viaduct, prohibiting outward traffic. At night, the lighting at the intersection was quite good.
To Mr Tracey: The caution sign was was three chains 24 yards from the Hewlings Street intersection.
Mr Tracey: “How is a motorist to associate that sign with a corner three a chains away?” |
Witness: "Easily. It is an indication that there is a down grade, and that the corner is a dangerous one.” “How far can it be seen before reaching Sarah Street?” — “About two chains."
“And yet you maintain that it refers to the next corner, and not Sarah Street?” — “That is so.”
“Have you had an additional light placed at the spot where the accident occurred?” — “Yes. quite near the spot."
“You previously asked for an extra light, did you not?” — “Yes, mainly for the purpose of traffic control.”
“The fact remains that the light has been installed since this accident?” “Yes.”
Continuing, witness said that it was true that cars came through the Viaduct, despite the regulation concerning one-way traffic. The proprietor of the Bay Tea-rooms was exempted from this regulation.
Albert L. Gee, who presided at the Coroner’s inquest, proved the depositions taken at the inquest. The finding was that the deceased died as a result of running into a car, driven by John Garland Cliff, no blame being attachable to the driver of the car.
The Magistrate: “Am I bound by that?”
Under cross-examination by Mr Tracey regarding the caution sign at Sarah Street, witness said that he had always taken the sign to refer to Sarah Street.
Mr Rolleston: “Were the deceased's relations represented at the inquest?” Witness: “No.”
“Were any facts or arguments placed before the jury?” — “No.”
The Magistrate: “I could not allow the jury's finding to influence me one way or the other. It would be dangerous to do so.”
Mr Rolleston: “If the caution sign referred to Sarah Street, would you not expect it to be before the corner, and not after it?”
Witness: “I had it in mind that it was before the corner.”
Mr Rolleston: “If you don’t know exactly where it is, we need not pursue the point.”
William J. Cotterell, representing the Waterside Employment Association, gave evidence as to the earnings of the plaintiff during the past two and a-half years.
John Patrick O’Leary, mechanic, said that about 11.50 on the night of April 4th, he was standing on the north side of the Bay Viaduct. The night was clear and moonlight. He saw a car coming down Stafford Street, and he also saw the deceased proceeding from the direction of the service station to the east side of Stafford Street, on an angle. He was going at a slow trot. The car was travelling about 20 to 25 miles an hour, with its lights burning brightly. From where he was standing, deceased appeared to strike the side of the car. Witness later inspected the car, the windscreen of which was broken, the door smashed, and the back mud-guard dented. The car did not slacken speed. Witness assisted to pick deceased up after the accident. The car travelled about 20 to 25 feet after the Impact.
To Mr Tracey: Deceased appeared to run straight ahead, without looking to right or left. He did not seem to have any regard for traffic. At the pace deceased was travelling he could have stopped in two or three feet. At no time was deceased in front of the car. He (witness) did not hear the horn of the car, but he would not swear that it was not sounded. There were no cars coming up from the Bay at the time of the accident, but later he saw three cars come under the Viaduct. The lights of the car should have been perceptible to the deceased.
May E. Kaye, wife of the plaintiff, and mother of the deceased, stated that deceased was 22 at the time of his death. On leaving school he was apprenticed to the hairdressing trade, giving witness all his earnings. After he was 18 years of age, he received better wages, and he then paid board, clothing himself. Deceased was in regular work until January of this year, when he was unemployed. For two days’ work he earned 26/-, of which he gave her 25/-. He also earned a few shillings at his trade in a private way. She estimated that it would cost her 15/- a week to keep the deceased.
To Mr Tracey: Deceased was nearsighted, and had worn glasses since boyhood, although he could see without them.
At this stage the Court adjourned for lunch. When the Court resumed, the Magistrate mentioned the "caution” sign which had been referred to in earlier evidence, stating that about a year ago the sign was above the Sarah Street intersection, but had then been shifted about two chains lower down.
Evidence was then given by plaintiff as to his earnings, and concerning his late son’s private affairs.
For the defence, Mr Tracy said that, stripped of a lot of its trimmings, the case was a very simple one, and on the case for plaintiff, defendant was entitled either to judgment or to a non-suit. It had been contended that the mere breaking of a by-law was prima facie evidence of negligence, but such contentions had always been refuted. Mr Tracy cited cases in support of his contention, and went on to say that the breach had to be either wilful or a negligent breach. With a wide open crossing, entire absence of other traffic, and the presence of one other pedestrian only, there could have been no negligence on the part of defendant. The witness O’Leary had given a clear account of what had happened, and he had also said that had deceased been keeping a look-out, he should have seen the lights of the car. Deceased ran into the side of the car, and was never in front of it. He submitted that for any pedestrian to run at the pace deceased was running, without looking either to right or left, was clear proof of contributory negligence, and should take defendant out of Court, Mr Tracy further remarked that having left the footpath, deceased continued on for 23 feet, still not looking to right or left, and right up to the point of his having run into the car, he had ample opportunity of avoiding the accident. Assuming that defendant was negligent, then he contended that both parties, up to the point of impact, had been negligent. He further contended that there was not sufficient space between time, place and circumstance to permit either party to claim against the other.
Mr Rolleston said that a breach of a by-law was negligence under certain circumstances, and in this case the negligence consisted of the defendant having driven at a greater speed than he should have done. Mr Tracy had not mentioned the question of a proper look-out, and that was one of the main features. Before the Coroner, defendant stated that he did not see the deceased, when he must have been within view for at least one hundred feet. As counsel for defendant had said, there was no other traffic about, and defendant must have had deceased in view for some time. That point was unanswerable.
The Magistrate: "The defendant may be able to say how it was that he did not see deceased. If he could not answer it, there must have been negligence.”
Mr Rolleston: "If that is proved, then my case must succeed.”
The Magistrate: “Not necessarily.”
Mr Rolleston: “I contend that any negligence on the part of the deceased was not the cause of the accident.”
After further lengthy argument, the Magistrate said that he would hear the evidence, and would reserve decision on the points raised. Defendant stated that he was at present working at the Waitaki hydro-electric works. On the night in question he was proceeding down Stafford Street towards the Bay, and when near Sarah Street he observed the lights of another car. He slowed down, but the other car gave way to him. He then proceeded on, at a speed of between 20 and 25 miles an hour. He sounded his horn approaching the intersection, and looked towards the Viaduct to see if there were any vehicles coming up from the Bay. When he looked back he saw a pedestrian about a step away from the car. The pedestrian struck the car about the windscreen, which was smashed. He pulled up in 20 to 25 feet, but did not skid the wheels.
To Mr Rolleston: He had seen a notice on the Viaduct concerning “in” traffic only. Deceased was never in front of the car, and for that reason, he did not see him. He could give no other explanation.
Mr Rolleston: “Have you ever been cautioned for speeding?”
Defendant: “Not since I have had the car.”
“When you were riding a motorcycle then?” — “Yes.”
“Was it at this same corner?" — "I am not sure, but I think it was.”
“How long ago was it — two years? “Yes, about then.”
Mr Rolleston produced a file containing a letter written by defendant, stating that he was not aware that he had been exceeding the speed limit.
Mr Tracey: “Where did you get that?
Mr Rolleston: “From the traffic inspector. I made inquiries if there had been any previous complaints.”
Mr Tracey: “Obviously it is an official document, and comes under the category of a police document. You produce it in Court without any sanction. If I suggested that to the traffic inspector in Christchurch, I know what sort of reception I would get.”
Evidence was then given by Patrick McAteer, taxi-driver, who stated that he stopped to give defendant the right-of-way at the Sarah Street intersection on the night in question, just a moment or two before the accident. At that comer he was exercising care. There were hanging lights at the intersection, but in his opinion, hanging lights were not to the advantage of a driver. A corner without lights was better for a driver, provided his own lights were in order.
This concluded the case, and the Magistrate reserved decision. -Timaru Herald, 2/7/1931.
DAMAGES CLAIM NOT ALLOWED.
PARENTS SUE DRIVER OF CAR FOR £2OO.
(Special to the “ Star.”) TIMARU, July 15.
Entering his reserved judgment for defendant in the Timaru Magistrate’s Court this morning in the claim of Frederick Chalmers Kaye and his wife, Emma Kaye, against John Garland Keith Cliff, Mr C. R. Orr-Walker, S.M., held that, even though defendant had been negligent, deceased (Frederick John Kaye) had also been guilty of contributory negligence and was therefore not entitled to recover.
The claim was for £200 compensation for the death of the plaintiffs’ son. Kaye was killed near the Bay Viaduct about midnight on Easter Saturday by being knocked down by a car driven by defendant.
At the inquest, Frederick Chalmers Kaye, father of the deceased, said that he had last seen deceased on the afternoon of the accident, and he was then in good health. His eyesight was not good, and he was compelled to wear glasses. He was a barber by trade, but was unemployed at the time of the accident.
John Patrick O’Leary, Street, Timaru, said he saw a motor-car travelling north along Stafford Street at from about 20 to 25 miles an hour. The car was on its correct side. Kaye had run across the road from the service station on the corner of Hewlings Street and Stafford Street toward the Viaduct. “He seemed to run right into the car,” witness added. The driver of the car, John Garland Keith Cliff, said that he had a clear view of the intersection. He glanced to the right to see if any other traffic were approaching and then looking forward again he saw a man about a yard away. The pedestrian seemed to jump straight into the side of the car his head hitting the door.
In returning a verdict of accidental death the jury gave an opinion that there was no blame attachable to the driver. -Star, 15/7/1931.
No comments:
Post a Comment