NEGLIGENT DRIVING

Greymouth Evening Star, 19 October 1939, Page 12

NEGLIGENT DRIVING

MOTORIST FOUND GUILTY [PIB PBESS ASSOCIATION.]’ CHRISTCHURCH, October 18. William Robert Conner was found guilty by a jury in the Supreme Court of negligently driving a motor-car in Worcester Street on the evening of June 16 and thereby causing the death of William Frederick Soper. The prisoner was remanded for sentence until to-morrow. Mr. Justice Northcroft was on the Bench, Mr. A. W. Brown prosecuted, and Mr. N. S. Bowie appeared for the accused. Mr. Brown said that the Crown contended that at the place where and at the time when the accident occurred a high standard of care was required. The regulations governing pedestrian crossings were well known. A motorist was required to yield the right of way, and so to reduce speed that he could stop before reaching the crossing if necessary. There seemed no doubt that the accused did not stop, and that his speed was so great that he could not avoid the pedestrian.

In his address to the jury, Mr. Brown suggested that on the evidence it was reasonable to believe that Conner approached the corner at a maximum speed of 15 miles an hour, saw Soper out in the middle of the road, thought that he would continue to walk forward, and proceeded to pass behind him. Unfortunately Soper did not continue to walk forward, but stepped back, possibly tripped, and fell against the right-hand side of the car.

Summing-up, His Honor referred to a comparatively recent development in traffic control, the pedestrian crossing. This had become necessary owing to the extraordinary danger to pedestrians in crossing the roads used by busy traffic. A special regulation was deisgned to give complete to the pedestrian, and it required a motorist not only to give way, but to handle his vehicle in such a manner as to be able to stop before reaching a crossing if necessary. The accused, in his statement, said he sounded his warning device, but the pedestrian continued as though he had not heard it. The inference of that statement was that the pedestrian had failed to get out of the motorist’s way. His Honor suggested that this might provide an insight to the mentality of the driver. “It is highly indecent, not to say impudent, foi’ a motorist approaching a pedestrian crossing. to take that view,” he said. The jury brought in its verdict of guilty after a retirement of two hours and 10 minutes.