HUMAN SAFETY.

Auckland Star, Volume LXI, Issue 181, 2 August 1930, Page 9

HUMAN SAFETY.

LAW FOR MOTORISTS. CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE. CHIEF JUSTICE'S RULING. HAPPENINGS A3TBR .ACCIDENT. i Questions "by the accused's counsel, based upon suggestions of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, were not allowed by the Chief Justice (Sir Michael ; Myers) in the Supreme Court in. Wellington-during the trial of Alfred Edward Storey, who was charged with having negligently driven a motor car in the Ngahauranga Gorge last April and caused the deaths of Mr. and Mrs. Cook. . - r His: Honor ruled that the question of contributory negligence by the deceased did not enter into the consideration of the case. There were too many accidents -of a similar nature, his Ho'rior said, and the law must be settled once and for all. He would direct the jury as a matter of law that only two questions were entitled to consideration. The first was whether' the accused Waj» negligent, and the if the accused was negligent, Would the accident have happened but for that negligence? "It Doesn't Matter One Bit." Mr. H. H. Cornish said he found himself to some little'; extent embarrassed by the observation. If the occasion arose, said'his Honor, he would, see that counsel was not prejudiced. Counsel submitted that what happened after the accident was of great importance. ' i His Honor:' I shall tell the jury that it doesn't matter one bit f : Continuing, Mr. Cornish asked a witness the question: "You did not regard the tragedy that ensued as the natural or probable conclusion of the collision?" His Honor said he was unable to allow the question, but at counsel's request, in view of the possibility of the question .of ] contributory negligence being raised in, Another Court, his Honor agreed to make a note of it. . After counsel had put another question, his Honor "said he would repeat that:both under the' Crimes Act and the Motor .Vehicles Act,;if a person by his negligence caused an accident -which resulted in the death of a person, and if that accident and consequent death were, due to that negligence, then the persW should be convicted. Accidents of this nature were so frequent that the law must be settled once arid for all. If the law -was found to be different to the ruling : he had given, then it was for Parliament to say whether or not it should be altered, and he was going to :direct .the. jury .in. .that way. He would be.yer.y.definite. .Pis ruling was that the, question of. contributory negligence did not enter into the consideration of the case. " - ( . . Mi". Cornish'made a reference to-the opinions of other judges. "It Must be Settled." His Honor: - 1 don't; care what other judges, have, ruled, and lard determined that 'the law must be settled' one way or ithe, other, ilf Tanf wrong no harm is done to anybody: If •it is necessary to reserve' the question, you know I shall place it in -the clearest possible direction. . , ,'. ■ . : i His Honor asked, his associate . to make, the following note:—r"Mr. Cornish at this stage asked a question based upon a • -suggestion- • -of.; - contributory negligence-on- the- part -of* the deceased, which question J disallowed." . "We.have got "to.consider the safety of human lives," said his Honor... Counsel agreed, and" as a motorist himself, he ; assured' his 'Honor that he was just as- concerned as anyone that the roads should be safe. • Nothing - that followed the impact of the two cars in the accident, ruled.his Honor, had *any bearing on •• ■ the case unless- there was ; spnie . .entirely new factor that the .accused, had nothing whatever'to do with. He repeated, that he'iould appreciate counsel's di&culty, but he was not endeavouring to place any difficulty' in his : way. His Hon.6r said he 1 was simply doing what he considered his obvious-duty.