STRUCK BY MOTOR GAR

Evening Star, Issue 19329, 16 August 1926, Page 6

STRUCK BY MOTOR GAR

ALBERT HICHOLSON’S DEATH DRIVER EXONERATED WARNING TO CARELESS PUBLIC. Sitting this morning as coroner, Mr ,T. B. Bartholomew, S.M., continued the inquest concerning the dentil of Albert Joseph Nicholson. On August 2 deceased was running out of Richmond street for a tram. Colliding with a motor car driven by Charles Ewen Atkinson, he was so badly injured that ho died on the way to the hospital. Chief-detective Lewis represented the police. Mr W. L. Moore appeared for the relatives, and Mr R. R. Aspinall for the driver of the motor car. Dr Henry Walden Fitzgerald, house surgeon at the Dunedin Hospital, said he remembered deceased being brought to the hospital. He found him dead. Witness, went on to describe deceased’s injuries, which included a fractured skull and a fractured jaw. To Mr Moore: The blow must have been a, heavy one. The head injuries probably arose from a forcible fall to the ground. He seemed to have been thrown on the -ground on his left side. To Mr Lewis: Some of the injuries might have resulted from his being pushed along by the car. James_ Laird Drysdale, _ a married man, living at St. Clair, said ho arrived from Gore with Ids wife and children on August'2, and engaged Atkinson (a taxi driver) to drive him homo. It was a closed-in car. The driver was quite sober, and capable of doing bis work. There was absolutely nothing wrong. They drove along Cargill road on the left-hand side, and approaching Richmond street the motor car seemed to slow down. There was a stationary tram facing them on their right-hand side. The car was moving at not more than twenty miles an hour before it slowed down appreciably. Witness heard the horn sounded, and all he observed in front of the car was a dark object, which then disappeared. They felt a slight hump. The whole thing happened very suddenly. The motor catswerved to the right to the rear of the tramcar, and there were two more bumps. In his opinion the car struck some object, and almost immediately after ran over it. Witness then saw someone lying in the road, and people gathered round. They went for the doctor. The deceased had evidently run for the tram, passing in front of the motor car. There was absolutely no carelessness; it was the slowest taxi trip he had ever had. To Mr Moore: The dark object he had seen seemed to be only two or three feet in front of the radiator. The driver swerved before he hit the object. To Mr Aspinall: The taxi driver was practically a stranger to him. All Cargill road was pot-holey, and that particular place was bad. Ha did not think it could have been the wheels that went over the object—certainly not the back wheels.

To the Coroner: Ho thought tho streets were w<»b; hut it was not raining at the time. George_ William Colston, a married man, living in Richmond street, said that on that night he left home at about (1.25 to take a tram to town. When lie reached Cargill road ho observed that tho car was turning from David street, so ho waited for it, and when it stopped ho walked to the rear. Three people boarded the car, and others ran to it from two or three directions. Witness stepped back from tho car to hold it till tho approaching people hoarded it, and* ho heard footsteps approaching from Richmond street, and saw a iiguro running diagonally across the road. Then he heard a horn sound, and a motor car collided with the figure. The motor car struck deceased a foot nearer the left-hand rail than the other. Deceased was about 7ft from tho tram car. The car struck him on the righthand side, and threw him, and then seemed to swerve between where he was at the moment of impact and where ho was thrown 15ft away. The motor car had its headlights on, and ha judged that it must have travelled from twelve to fifteen miles an hour. It was travelling more slowly than cars usually do. It was clearly visible coming along. A person running diagonally towards the tram might _weli not see the motor car approaching; that was what happened, witness thought. The road was full of potholes. A motor car travelling on the tram line could pull up easily; there was a good surface. At tho side, the pot-holes would keep the car from skidding. The taxidriver was absolutely sober; there was absolutely no sign of dripk about him. The fact that deceased was running half with the car might account for his being thrown 15ft. To Mr Moore: The headlights were not glaring ones. They were not dimmed as tho car approached Richmond street. To Air Aspinnll: The. driver could not see deceased till he came right into the road. To Mr Lewis: If a person ran out of Richmond street it did not give an approaching motor driver much of a chance of pulling up. Constable Charles Henry Pratt, stationed at Cavcrsliain,, said ho went to the scene after the accident occurred. Deceased was unconscious, and never rallied. The driver was quite sober. Detective George Henry Hart said he examined tho scone of the accident the following day, and took measurements ns on the plan submitted. His inquiries had failed to elicit any more than was given in evidence this day. Charles Ewen Atkinson, licensed taxi driver, said that ns he approached Richmond street all was well with the car, which had been overhauled the previous week. Jt was a very dark night. He thought the ordinary lights were on in tho street. Approaching Richmond street lie cased up from fifteen miles to twelve miles an hour, as ho saw a stationary tramcar loading for town._ He sounded his horn two or three times, and next saw a black object in front of the. car—he could not tell at the time whether it was a man or a woman. The car ran into the person, and witness felt the hump before he could apply his brakes. Before he struck deceased he swerved to the right to ify to avoid him, aad then ran right across tho road out of the way of the traffic. Witness could not see just what happened. His car was pulled up about 17ft from the injured person, without tho wheels being skidded. Witness drove to Dr Murray’s to got attention for the man. He had about twenty years’ experience of driving motor ears. Ho neither drank nor smoked. Mr Moore; You had your own lights burning, there was light from the tramcar, and from a street lamp, and yet you did not see the man? Witness: I did not see him till he was right in front of tho radiator. Witness was questioned by Mr Aspinall. To Mr Lewis ho said he had no chance of avoiding the accident; lie •would have had to pull up in a fraction of a second. _ The Coroner said that the incidents loading up to this unfortunate happening were clear enough, and there was no conflict of evidence. The deceased ran,out into the road intent on catching a tram, and the motor car ran into him, so that ho received such injuries as to cause death. The evidence showed that the motor car was travelling at quite a reasonable speed, and on'that point Atkinson’s evidence was corroborated by the other witnesses. AH were agreed that the horn was

sounded several times before the reached Richmond street. The __ question arose: Was there any negligence on the part ol the motoristP The deceased himself was guilty of considerable negligence in running out on a dark night into Cargill road, a street with a good deal of traffic on it as a rule. Gould the motorist, by careful driving, have made up for the negligence of Nicholson? Tho_ position was that the driver had to give particular attention to the stationary tram that was there, and the evidence showed that people were running for the tram from other places, so that the motorist had to consider other traffic than that from Richmond street. Then the distance from the footpath to the tram rail was only 10ft, so that a man suddenly running out would have only a short distance to go before projecting himself in front of the car. Another point (and one that he, the coroner, had studied) was the great difficulty of picking up a dark object against a dark background. In this case the asphalt was wet, so it would be hard to distinguish a dark object aherfcl, Considering the whole position and all the circumstances he was unable to find that there was any negligence on the part of the driver. It was a case of misfortune, and the same thing might easily have happened to any driver, no matter how careful ho was. The verdict would be that deceased died from injuries received through being accidentally struck by . a motor car.

“1 would like,” said the Coroner, in conclusion, “to stress the need there is for pedestrians to use care in crossing the streets. _ In these days of heavy motor traffic it is not safe for anyone to run across the road, particularly at an intersection. Close attention should he given to the approaching and this would lesser greatly the anxiety and difficulty that the motorists have at-present. Wo have all noticed how very careless the public generally are in these things, and I hope that this will serve to emphasise the danger I have indicated.”