STREET ACCIDENT.

Auckland Star, Volume LIV, Issue 49, 27 February 1923, Page 7

STREET ACCIDENT.

MAN SEVERELY INJURED

TWO DRIVKR.S FINED.

MAGISTRATE OX MOTORISTS. Reserved decision was given to-day by Mr. Povnton. S.M.. j n thp case in u ; hj( . h •I. Roberts i Mr. singer) and F. A. I in-key I.Mr. Ulomiicldj were charged wi'h dangerous driving. "The facts are," said the Magistrate, "that a pedestrian stepped orV the kerbing in Upper Queen Street, intending to cro-s 'hp roa.l. He walked a short distance, when lie was knocked down by n motor driven by defendant Roberta. As hp lay unconscious, another car, driven by defendant Puckey. going in the samp direction down the street, ran over him. the front wheels passing over his body, and tlip hind wheels dragging him along the street for a few feet". T>v time was shortly before 8 p.m.. the position just opposite the Dixieland '< a hare*, the street being brilliantly lit. with no shadow on the roadway. " He was carrying some parcels, and" walked absentmindedly in front of the car, hi* head bent down, sheltering from' the rain. The evidence is conflicting as lo whether it was raining or not at the time of the collision. T do not think it was. but this does not appear to b> of any consequence.

"Defendant Roberts did not see Uic man until lip was right, in front of liis left hand mudguard, which knocked him ili.wn. Mr. Robprts" daughter saw the man at tlip same moment. Mr. Rol.erts swerved to 'he right, but it was too latp. Mr. Puckey, coming behind, saw tliis swerve, and looked down the .street. Seeing iro vehicle ahead, he did not stop or swerve, and so ran over the unconscious man. The speed is variously estimated. One witness swore Mr. Robert's speed was 2.1 to 30 miles per hour. Another said both cars wera goidcr at 'a terrible, rate.' 1 think Mr. Hoberts would he going at 15 miles, an.l Mr. Puckey at 12 or 13 miles per hour. The spot pointed out *o "ie Court as fat where, approximately, the man was struck by tlip first car, would be 10ft from the kerb. As he was walking diagonally down the s'.reet, and not straight across it, hp would have walked ]perhaps I.lft on to the road Ivjforo the mudguard of Mr. Roberts' oar hit him. As the car. at 15 miles per hour, wouM !ic going more than five '.irnes as fast as the man was walking, he must hpvc stepped on the street at a point about 75ft in front of the car. Had Mr. Uoberts been looking ahead as i* was his duty to do he would have seen the IH.I n tiiul would have had ample nine to sweive to his right, sounded nia hoin, slowed down or stopped, and so have p voided the accident. -Pedestrians are often to blame in the careless way they go about, and accidents are often due to this, but if the man knocked oyer in this case was careless that would not excuse the driver for a lapse of vigilance, so necessary in busy streets, where children, old and deaf persons, those under the influence of drink or sudden illness may get in the road. Negligence is of many kinds. A motorist may drive without lights at excessive speed, pass corners without sounding the horn, or have his car fully lighted, but be not looking ahead. Any of these acts would be negligence in various degrees under certain circumstances. I must find on the facts that defendant Roberts was not keeping a proper lookout at the time of the accident. He could not possibly have been doing so, or he would have seen the man, who is large, and was dressed at the time in a dark suit, contrasting with a brilliantly lighted, shadowless road.

"Mr. Puckey's case is much the same. He. too, was not as vigilant as he might have been. His distance behind Mr. Roberts is variously estimated at from ten to twenty yards. He was going more slowly, saw Mr. Roberts swerve, and bad he" looked on the road could not possibly have avoided seeing the prostrate man thereon.

"It is urged on his behalf that it is not usual to find unconscious men lying on the street, and therefore it was not negligence to omit to look for them. "But on a busy street many things may be looked for," and it is a motorist"s duty to keep a watch for them. Had Mr. Puckey been doing this he certainly would not have run over the man. I must find that neither of the drivers was keeping a reasonable lookout, and so they must be convicted. Kach will be fined £5 1/. and ordered to pay costs, 19/. and witnesses, £1 5/, in each case. Security for appeal in each case, £10, plus amount of fine and costs."