FOUND GUILTY OF NEGLIGENCE

Press, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 25182, 13 May 1947, Page 3

FOUND GUILTY OF NEGLIGENCE

DRIVER REMANDED FOR SENTENCE

DEATH OF ELDERLY MAN IN COLLISION Found guilty in the Supreme Court yesterday on a charge fo negligent driving which caused the death of Albert Buckley, aged 63, on December 17 last, by failing to give way to traffic,on his right, Alfred George Ringdahl, a fruiterer, of 54 Ferry road (Mr E. B. E. Taylor) was remanded until to-day for sentence by Mr Justice Fleming. The jury returned the verdict after a retirement lasting about three-quarters of an hour. The prosecution was conducted .by Mr A. W. Brown. Buckley, with his wife and several other passengers, was driving from Sumner along Linwood avenue, about 5 o“clock on December 17 last, said Mr Brown. Accused had been driving a truck along St. John street, and at the intersection of Linwood avenue the accident occurred. Buckley’s car was badly damaged on the deft-hand side, the passengers were all injured, and the driver later died. There were none of the bad features like drink in the case, said Mr Brown. That Buckley was dead on arrival at the Christchurch Public Hospital was stated in written evidence by Cyril Ashley Heaphy, a medieal practitioner. The Government Analyst (Mr F. J. T. Grigg), in a written report, stated that samples of Buckley’s blood and urine showed no signs of alcohol. Edith Elizabeth Buckley, widow of the dead man, said she had been a passenger in the front seat of the car. Her husband had been a careful driver and was following his usual route home. She could not remember details of the accident. Another passenger in the car said she could remember no details of the accident. A market gardener, Kenneth lan Mclntosh, of 483 Linwood avenue, said that shortly after 5 o’clock on December 17, he heard the sound of a collision. When he investigated, he found the small car lying on its side neir the north-west corner of Linwood avenue.

Constable J. P. Cuttance told the Court of his visit to the scene of the accident. Accused had said that when about 10 yards from the intersection, he saw a car approaching on his right about 100 yards away. He considered he had time to cross before it, but there was an impact and both vehicles had ended up in the ditch. There were several skid marks near the scene, continued witness, some of which appeared to have been caused by a car being pushed sideways. In a statement, accused had said that he was of the opinion that the accident had been caused by the driver of the small car apparently going to turn to his right into St. John street and then changing his mind. Evidence for Defence Alfred George Ringdahl said he was travelling about 20 miles an hour anfi when he first saw Buckley’s car it was a long way down the road. When he saw the car the second time it was in the centre of the road. His speed was 15 miles an hour. He intended to give way if he had had to, but when he saw the car begin a right-hand turn he accelerated slightly. The car straightened up and he applied the brakes. He was three parts of the way over the crossing when the collision occurred. He estimated that the speed of Buckley’s car was 30 miles an hour. He had been injured climbing into the other car to rescue the injured persons. In 4the 30 years he had been driving he had never had an accident before.

To Mr Brown, witness said that his brakes were good and he could stop in four feet at 15 miles an hour. It was possible that Buckley or his passengers had not seen’ his truck.

A passenger in Ringdahl’s truck, Elsie Evelyn McCormick, corroborated the evidence of accused about the speed of the truck and the course of Buckley’s car. Like all accidents, this one was particularly unfortunate because it involved the death of an elderly man, said Mr Taylor in his address to the jury. Accused was under a difficulty in that the passengers in the car had not been able to give any details of the collision because they could not remember. There was a proviso in the rule for giving way to traffic on the right which said that if the vehicle with the right of way was turning to the right, it lost the privilege. Evidence for the defence had shown that Buckley began to turn. He submitted that this was the only reason why the accident occurred.

There could be no suggestion that Ringdahl’s speed had been excessive or that his look-Out had been at fault. Ringdahl had given a simple explanation about .alleged failure to give way. On the statement of accused, he had seen the small car approaching, but had elected to go on, said Mr Brown. He had said that the car began to turn the corner without slackening speed—about 30 miles an hour. Accused was able to stop but did not, and it was a reasonable inference that he did not act. as a prudent man would have done in the circumstances. The fixing of a standard of care on the roads was in the hands of jurors, and if it were set too low it would probably lead to more accidents, said Mr Brown.

His Honour agreed that it was rather an unusual case in that the passengers had been unable to give derails of the accident because of injuries suffered In summing up, he said that Ringdahl had failed to give way and had to give a satisfactory explanation of his conduct. This explanation should be regarded critically because it could not be disputed by the dead man.