Supreme Court Woman Acquitted On Manslaughter Charge

Press, Volume C, Issue 29444, 21 February 1961, Page 11

Supreme Court Woman Acquitted On Manslaughter Charge

A jury in the Supreme Court yesterday found Janet Elizabeth Grigg, aged 38, a nurse, not guilty on a charge of manslaughter.

Grigg pleaded not guilty to committing manslaughter by so opening the door of her station waggon as to be likely to cause injury. The accident occurred on October 12, 1960, on the Main North road, and resulted in the death of Arthur George Neilsen, a married man. The jury took 21 minutes to reach its verdict. Mr Justict Macarthur discharged Grigg. -Mr C. M. Roper conducted the case for the Crown. Mr R. A. Young, with him Mr J. F. Burn, appeared for Grigg. The Crown's case was that the accused had killed Neilsen by an unlawful act, said Mr Roper in his opening address to the jury. Alternatively, the Crown’s case was that the accused had killed Neilsen by omitting, without just excuse, a legal duty. Under regulation 50, sub-eection 3, of the Traffic Regulations, 1956, it was an offence to open a door of a vehicle so as to be likely to cause injury to others. "The accused gpened the driver's door of her station waggon without having regard to a passing cyclist, Neilsen, who struck 'the door and suffered injuries from which he died. “The Crown does not suggest that the accused wilfully opened the car door so as to cause Neilsen injury. Her action was, in effect, a failure to take reasonable care,” Mr Roper said. « Crown Evidence He said that the evidence

for the Crown would be Jhat Neilsen left, his work at The Firestone factory in Papaffiii shortly after 3 p.m., he being a shift worker. Neilsen went to the Phoenix Hotel on the Main North road, Papanui, and had about six eight-ounce beers with another man.

Neilsen’s drinking companion would say Neilsen was sober when he left the hotel about 4 p.m. Neilsen called at a hairdresser’s shop and the man in the shop, who had knowji him for a number of years, would say he was sober and in normal health. Neilsen then rode north on his cycle along the Main North road. In the meantime, the accused had parked her station waggon on the western side of the road, facing north, about 100 yards north of the Phoenix Hotel, almost opposite Shearer avenue. "The evidence will be that Neilson was about to cycle past the station waggon when the driver’s door was opened by the accused, who was sitting in the driver’s seat. "Neilsen struck the door, was flung to the right, struck by a passing truck, and thrown back so that he fell to the roadway in front of the accused’s station waggon. “The accident happened about 4.20 p.m. Neilsen died about an hour later from shock and multiple injuries,” Mr Roper said. Counsel said that the accused made a long statement to the police.. In substance, she said that before opening her car door she looked to the rear for oncoming traffic. She did not see any traffic. She did not see Neilsen on his bicycle. Rhona Florence Hughes, .a married woman, said she was on the footpath when the accident happened. The first thing she saw was Neilsen somersaulting in the air. Saw Man in the Air “He seemed to be unconscious, unable to help himself, before he hit the road. I did not see the driver’s door of the station waggon opening,” said witness. "It was fully open when I first saw it. The man was in the air between the station waggon and a truck travelling alongside it. “The man when I walked up was on the bitumen verge of the road with his head in front of the right-hand, front wheel. The bicycle was near the back of the station waggon. It appeared to have been spun round,* ’ witness said. To Mr Young, witness said the truck was on the concrete part of the road when it passed the station waggon parked on the bitumen verge. She could not say what distance was between the truck and the station waggon as the truck passed it. George Clifford Forbes, a driver employed by the Waimairi County Council, said he drove his truck from Sawyers Arms road into the Main North road. Traffic was heavy and he had to wait before getting to the Main North road. He then travelled north. “I did not actually see the door of the station waggon opening. It was open when I first saw it. I was about a quarter of a chain, from the station waggon when I first saw the opened door. “Did Not See Cyclist” "I did not see a cyclist travelling in the same direction. I had passed the car when a passenger in my truck said he heard a bump. “I stopped the truck after pulling into the kerb. I walked back and saw a man lying in front of the car. A lady was attending to him. I did not think I was involved. I did not see any bicycle. It was a clear, sunny day.” Forbes said. To Mr Young, Forbes said, the first thing he saw after turning from Sawyers 4rms road irtto the Main North road was the open door of the station waggon. He couldjiot recall saying in the lower Court that his truck was a chain away from the station waggon when he first saw the open door. I “I gave the station waggon

three or four feet clearance, from the open door, as I passed it. I did not see the cyclist until I saw him lying on the ground when I went back. I never dreamt that I was involved in the accident. I did not think anyone had hit me or I had hit anyone. The police saw me at 11 a.m. the next day,” said Forbes. To further questions, Forbes said he had intended to pull up at his home, a little further up the road. He said he did not thinkeit was the turning of his truck, as he pulled into the kerb, which had carried Neilsen and deposited him in front of the station waggon. Lewis Wallace Gibson, a Waimairi County Council employee, said he was a passenger in Forbes’s truck. He saw a cyclist in front of the truck. When the door of the station waggon opened the cyclisit was abotit half-way along the station waggon. The truck was at the back of the station waggon. “I saw the cyclist hit the opened car door. The cyclist fell out towards the road. Our truck was about level with the car door, then. I felt a bump on the deck of the truck. I told Mr Forbes about the bump,” Gibson said. Cross-examined, Gibson said his eyesight was not good. He thought Neilsen would have been thrown forwards and towards the gutter when he hit the deck of the truck. Mr Young: Did you see the door open? Gibson: It was open when the cyclist was half-way along the car. You saw an opened door?— Yes. In other words, you did not see the door being opened?— I did not. Alcoholic Content Denis James Hogan, a scientific officer, of the Dominion Laboratory, said tests were made from samples of cerebospinal fluid and urine from Nielsen’s body. The tests showed an alcoholic content “in the high range,” witness said to Mr Young’s questions. Dr. C. T. B. Pearson said Neilsen suffered a compound fracture of his right arm and lacerations to his left lung, spleen, liver and kidneys. Cross-examined, witness said Neilsen must have had a very considerable amount of alcohol ... a minimum of about 14 eight-ounce glasses >f beer. “I do not think a man with alcoholic content equal to that shown in Neilsen could be in proper charge of a bicycle. If confronted with a situation where he had to apply a backpedalling brake his reaction time would be sloped very considerably,” witness said to further questions by Mr Young. To Mr Roper, witness said between 80 to 85 per cent, of people with a concentration of alcohol equal to Neilsen’s would be intoxicated. Constable A. J. Leslie read a statement he took from the accused. In her statement. Grigg said: "Prior to opening the door I looked back and saw nothing coming. I then put my right hand on the door handle and at the same time I picked up my handbag. "By this time the door was opened. I then saw a man cyclist run into my car door. He was thrown to his right

against a passing truck . . . I do not blame the truck driver because the impact from my car door threw the cyclist against the oncoming truck,” accused said in her statement Case For Defence Mr Youqp, before giving his address to the jury, asked his Honour to consider the case from the point of view of section 42 of the Criminal Justice Act. His Honour saied this was a power rarely exercised by the Courts, but if Mr Young wished to make submission in support of his application the Court would listen to them. Mr Young, after the afternoon tea adjournment, said he did not wish to make any submissions. Mr Roper did not make any final address. Mr Young called no evidence for the defence. Addressing the jury,- Mr Young said that the defence strongly denied that the accused was guilty of negligence. The defence said that the accused had acted reasonably in looking towards trfe rear before • opening her door. “I suggest to you that even now there was such a combination of circumstances that it would be unjust and unfair to put the blame on any one of those involved in this accident,” counsel said. Accused’s statement was an honourable and truthful one: The constable who took it down said she had been frank and co-operative—and accused had said that she had looked behind before opening the door, Mr Young said. He submitted that Neilsen must have been in a blind spot when accused looked behind. The door was open for some time before it was hit by the cycle and therefore the cyclist should have seen it and avoided it The cyclist could have been weaving an unsteady course. “This section of the traffic regulations is designed to operate against the careless motorist—one who does not look behind. What more can a motorist do than look behind—otherwise no motorist could get out the right hand side door,” counsel said. He submitted further that the truck driver had hugged accused’s car too closely hav[JK not seen the cyclist and that the cyclist was in such a condition that he could not adequately control his cycle. Counsel submitted that it was highly probable that Neilsen became hooked up on the tray of the passing truck just sefo5 efor ® hls cycle hit the car door. This would explain how he was carried forward to the of the station waggon but his cycle found at the rear of it.