“SHOCKING LOSS OF LIFE”

Hawera Star, Volume LII, 28 July 1932, Page 7

“SHOCKING LOSS OF LIFE”

NEGLIGENCE OF MOTORISTS FATAL ACCIDENTS INCREASINGNINETY PER. CENT. AVOIDABLE;. JUDGE’S COMMENT TO JURY. (By Telegraph—Press Association.) WELLINGTON, July 28. Tli© great responsibility devolving upon juries who are to try cases in which there has been loss of life through the alleged negligence of a motorist was referred to by. His Honour, Mr. Justice Reed, in directing the jury to-day at the conclusion of the trial! of "James Thomas Rutherford. Charged with manslaughter;, arising from the death of Frank Muirhead .Gillespie,- a passenger in a lorry driven by Rutherford, which was struck by a train at Masterton on April 9. “The duty is east upon juries to see if it is possible to reduce this shocking loss of life by insisting upon a high degree of care,” said His Honour. He also commented on the nonobservance by many motorists of the compulsory railway stop notice at level crossings.

His Honour said without hesitation, and with some experience of such caseis, that fully ninety per cent, of them were due to negligence, and probably ten pei cent, to inevitable accidents. Speed was often blamed, but his- experience was that speed -was not often the factor. A careful driver took” no risks, and a careless driver often would take a risk.

His Honour said it was the juries of the Dominion that had set the degree of negligence they would excuse the duty that was east upon juries to see if it was possible to reduce the shocking loss of life by insisting upon a high degree of care in the management of motor vehicles. If juries were strict it did not necessarily follow 7 that the person concerned should be punished severely. It was of great importance, however, that the person should not escape being convicted where the jury was thoroughly satisfied there had been negligence, and that the loss of life had been due to the negligent handling of a car. The higher degree of' care demanded, the more deterrent there Would be to the careless driver.

In regard to the compulsory stop sign His Honour said the rule was a stringent one and was supposed to be obeyed. He was aware it was not obeyed and that persons did not actually stop, but at all events it was a reasonable ground for exercising due care -when approaching a railway crossing. The fact, however, that a person did not obey that rule was not conclusive evidence of negligence, but it was some evidence of negligence. After reading some observations on negligence by the lafe Sir John Salmond. His Honour said that had Rutherford stopped his vehicle he could have heard the train whistle and could have heard the noise of the train approaching. He thought the jury would agree that a reasonable man, before going on to a level crossing, would look carefully to se© whether a train was approaching, and that if he did not do so lie was negligent. That was the broad point. The jury retired at 11.20 and’had not returned at 3 o’clock.