NEGLIGENT MOTORISTS

Dominion, Volume 17, Issue 287, 21 August 1923, Page 8

NEGLIGENT MOTORISTS

“MANSLAUGHTER” THE WRONG TERM JUDGE SUGGESTS CHANGE By Telegraph.—Press Association, Christchurch, August 20. Mr. Justice Reed, in his charge to the grand jury in the Supreme Court to-day, on a charge of manslaughter against J. T. Doherty, arising out of a fatal motor-car accident, said that tho case was in a class that was btecoming too common, unfortunately. Motor-cars were becoming more numerous every year and accidents were keeping pace with tide increase. There was a special statutory duty on the driver of a motor-car to take reasonable precautions and care to avoid danger. If he did not do so he was responsible criminally for results that followed his negligence. The word applied to that class of crime, “manslaughter,” was an unfortunate one. It often frightened a common jury against finding a verdict of guilty against a person obviously guilty, because probably he was a man of excellent character, and because his counsel strongly impressed on the jury tliat manslaughter was. a terrible, crime, second only to murder. The sympathies of jurymen werle aroused and a sympathetic verdict might be given. If the statute was amended to eliminate “manslaughter” in those cases and to substitute “causing tide death of a human being by negligently driving a motor-car,” there would be few instances of negligent people being acquitted. Thfe statute might also be amended also to give power to prohibit a person from driving for a number of years. The power might be extended to magistrates. Tlife alteration would make drivers more careful.

Statistics collected in America showed that most accidents were dule to excessive speed, not to congested traffic. Manv of them happened in country districts where drivers wtere speeding. A recent statement on the point by the president of the New Zealand Automobile Association seemed to bo well founded. He said that it was excessive to drive at a speed exceeding thirty miles an hour. The speed was not actually restricted in the motor regulations. It probably was better to leave the law in its present state in that respect, because any alteration to fix a maximum speed would interfere unduly with experts and probably would have no effect on inexpert drivers. “I have dealt with this question at some length,” His Honour added. “not because it represents the most serious cases that come before this Court but because motor accidents are causing many deaths in New Zealand.” Crand Jury's Recommendation. The grand jury later made the following recommendation: —“That this grand jury is of opinion that where a person has been convicted on a charge of driving a motor to the danger of the public power should be given to the Judge or Magistrate, should circumstances warrant it. to prohibit such person holding a license or driving a motor in any district in the Dominion ; and that after such prohibition it should be a penal offence for any such person so prohibited to drive a car or motor in the Dominion.” Mr. Justice Reed said that he firmly agreed with the recommendation and hoped the effect of it would be to cause legislation to be carried out in this connection.