LORRY DRIVER FINED

Greymouth Evening Star, 19 June 1937, Page 2

LORRY DRIVER FINED

PAROA ROAD COLLISION. When trying to pass a motor-lorry parked on the side of the Paroa Road, near South Beach, on the evening of February 11. two other lorries came into collision, and were badly damaged. As a. result, proceedings were taken against one of the drivers, by the police, in the Magistrate's Court. Greymouth, yesterday afternoon, before Mr. Raymond Ferner. S.M.. and the hearing occupied nearly three hours, resulting in one of the drivers being fined £2, with costs, on a charge of reckless driving. Senior-Sergeant E. Quayle conducted the case for the police. James Charles Fraser. 31. of Dunedin. was charged with (1) driving a motor-lorry without due care and attention, and (2) reckless driving. He pleaded not guilty, and was defended by Mr. AV. D. Taylor. The Senior-Sergeant said that, about 6.30 p.m., when it was still daylight, defendant was driving a motor-lorry, conveying three tons of metal from the Cobden quarry, in the direction

of Kumara. The accident occurred about four miles from Greymouth where th© road was quite straight, with a bitumen surface, and a width of about 20 feet to 22 feet. At th'is point another lorry, owned by a man named Caulton, was standing parked on its correct side of the road, facing towards Paroa. To pass this lorry, defendant had to go to his right. Coming in the opposite direction was a lorry driven by Alfred Leeming. Both lorries arrived opposite the parked lorry at the same time. Leeming was driving on his correct side, and defendant had to go to the right. The' parked lorry was close in to its correct side, and occupied about six feet of the road. Leeming saw ’defendant’s lorry coming, so applied his brakes and went steadily, but defendant did not brake at all. He came straight on, and the two lorries came into collision opposite the parked lorry, Leeming’s lorry being knocked back lift. 6in. by the force ,of the impact. It was almost stopped at the time of the collision. Before defendant’s lorry stopped, it travelled 69 feet. Both lorries were badly damaged. . Leeming had his hand injured, and Charles Prestidge, who was with him, was cut by glass from the windscreen. The police contended that defendant should have pulled up, and allowed Leeming to go through first, as Leeming was on his correct side. Defendant had to go to his wrong side, to pass the parked lorry, and therefore he should have waited until Leeming got through. Evidence on the lines of the SeniorSergeant’s statement was given by Alfred Buckingham Leeming, contractor, now of Kumara; Charles Pirestidge, labourer, of Kumara, employed by Leeming: Constable Hammond, who visited the scene after the collision; and Constable Ricketts, to whom defendant made written statements on the day after the accident. In his opening address. Mr. Tavlor submitted that it was- unfair of the police to charge only one of the part-

ies. The point upon which he mainly relied in his defence, he said, was Leeming’s admission that 20 yards back from the point of impact, it was not clear to him that something was going. to happen. It must have been perfectly obvious. 20 yards away, that unless someone pulled up. there was going to be a collision. In such circumstances, it became Leeming’s duty, just as much as defendant’s, to apply his brakes and bring his vehicle to a standstill. He had the opportunity to do so. and the onus was upon him, just as much as it was upon Fraser. Mr. Taylor submitted that Leeming intended to pass, until the last moment. when he saw a hole at the left-hand-side of the road. He then realised that if he pulled out any further to his left, he might get into the hole. Counsel further contended that. Leeming then veered to his right, and actually drove into the collision. The S.M. said that he was not there to determine the question of contributory negligence, as-Leeming was not charged with negligence. The Court was considering solely the question of whether defendant drove recklessly. In the course' of his evidence, defendant said that he first saw Leeming’s truck when it was a considerable distance away from the point of impact. . He thought he had plenty of time to get through before Leeming arrived at. the parked lorry, and he therefore carried on. When he was right abreast of the parked lorry. Leeming seemed to swerve his steering wheel in towards defendant’s lorry. Fraser said that he pulled over as far as possible towards the parked lorry. If Leeming had not swerved in, there would have been no collision. At this stage, the respective positions of the lorries were demonstrated, by means of small models produced by Mr. Taylor. Defendant said that if there had been another IS inches clearance, the trucks could have passed. The brake skid marks on the road after the a.c- ' cident showed that Leeming . had swerved in IS inches or two feet, before the collision occurred. The force of the impact broke the brake- ' rods on defendant’s lorry, and he there- ‘ fore had no brakes available. There was a slight downhill grade, and his lorry travelled farther after the acci- ' dent than it would have done on a , level surface. He did not admit that Leeming had the right-of-way. Leem- ’ ing’s lorry was still travelling when

the collision occurred. Prior to that, he was travelling faster than defendant. The latter did not know, until they they were right on each other, that. Leeming was going to "give it a go” to get through. Defendant admitted that he did not use his brakes, and said he did not do so because it seemed that he had any amount of time to gel through. Leeming was travelling faster than he thought. The weight of the loaded lorry would account of Learning's empty lorrv being knocked hack. Asked whether he thought it was reasonable for throe lorries to pass abreast, defendant said he did not. What ho did say was that ho thought he was going to get through before Leeming came along. However, Looming unveiled much taster than he did and then Leeming swerved right in, and caused the collision. Walter Lionel Lawry. insurance assessor, of Christchurch. g ;iV(l e .vi<l ( >n<e regarding measurements of the road which he made on the dav after th/ accident. |

Hit* Senior-Sergeant submitted that Leeming had done his ben to avoid the accident, and, that he could not be held responsible, even if his lorrv did veer to the right.

MAGISTRATES COMMENTS. in cases of this kind, said the SM involving conflicts of testimony as* to speed and other conditions, and particularly as to speed, the Court was not

inclined to accept the opinion of the parties, as against indications in the to the wheels, he thought that the to vehicles, and other points, after a collision. It invariably happened that one party would say that the opposite party was travelling at a great speed. In this case, each party attributed the -collision to the speed of the other. In his view, said the S.M.. .the accident was caused by the negligence of the defendant, in running into this hazard. He (the S.M.) thought that Deeming was going at a greater speed than he said he was. in his evidence. That was indicated by the length of his brake skid marks, with an empty vehicle. Notwithstanding that hydraulic brakes were theoretically supposed

to stop a. vehicle by even application

nature of brake skid marks, damage swerve was caused by Learning's braking operation. He did not think it was necessary to find that, as a fact, in view of the conclusion that he had come to on other parts of the evidence, but he thought tltfit was what happened. The skid marks showed that there was an attempt to brake at a fairly early stage. It supported Mr. Taylor’s contention that Leeming must have appreciated the possibility of an accident, at an earlier tirhe than he said he did. The S.M. said he could not see that that had any bearing upon the negligence of the defendant. \ He thought the indications were defendant

was going at a very considerable speed. The damage to his own lorry, which he said was not. braked at the moment of impact, was considerable. He knocked back for lift. 6in. the braked vehicle of Leeming. Defendant must have had a considerable opportunity to observe the situation that was developing. There was- a straight highway, with ample opportunity to observe not only the parked lorry, but also the oncoming lorry of Leeming. Defendant was under a duty to take

care in passing the stationary vehicle, as the manoeuvre involved his turning out and away from his correct side of the highway., and to some extent on to his wrong side. Whether or not there was room for three to pass, the S.M. said he did not regard as important. Even if Caulton’s lorry was only Gft. wide, on Lawry’s evidence the three lorries must have taken up 20ft. Bin. of the available space, which could not have

been much greater than 20ft. or 22ft. It was a distinctly negligent and extremely hazardous proceeding, to run a vehicle into a position where three would be abreast, or there was a possibility of three being abreast, in such a restricted space. For the reasons he indicated, he found that defendant was negligent, and that he drove without due care and attention. He must

be convicted on both charges. Air. Taylor suggested that, in the circumstances, the matter would be amply met by a conviction on one charge. It was unusual to convict on two charges arising out of the same accident. He thought the intention of the police was that, if defendant was convicted on one charge, the other would be dismissed. The S.M.: What difference does it make? I do not intend to impose two penalties. Two convictions were twice as bad as one. said Mr. Taylor. The Senior-Sergeant, said that the charges were laid as alternatives. The S.M. said that he would convict defendant on the charge of reckless driving, and would dismiss the other charge. Fraser would be fined with .10/- Court costs and .£2 ?>/- witnesses’ expenses.

The S.M.: 1 take it that, there are other proceedings of a civil character? Mr Taylor said that, the civil action would come before the Court on Tuesday next.