BUS DRIVER ACQUITTED

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXII, Issue 192, 29 July 1932, Page 8

BUS DRIVER ACQUITTED

HARGE OF MANSLAUGHTER. SEQUEL TO CROSSING SMASH. Wellington, July 28. After a retirement of four hours the jury returned a verdict of not guilty in the Supreme Court case against Janies Thomas Rutherford, who was charged with negligent driving, thereby causing death. Tho charges arose out of a level crossing accident at Masterton on the evening of April 9, when a bus driven by Rutherford was struck by a train and one of the passengers, Frank Muirhead Gillespie, was killed. The great responsibility devolving upon juries who have 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 at the conclusion of the trial. “A duty is-cast 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 -ion-ob-servance by many motorists of the compulsory railway stop notice at level crossings, His Honour said, without hesitation and with some experience of such cases, that fully 90 per cent, of them were due to negligence and probably 10 per cent, to inevitable accident. Speed was often blamed, but his experience was that speed was not often a factor. A careful driver took no risks, but a careless driven often would take risks. His Honour said it was the juries of the Dominion that had set the degree of negligence that they would excuse. A duty was cast 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 that the person concerned should be punished severely. It was of great importance, however, that a person should not escape being convicted where a jury was thoroughly satisfied that there had been negligence and the loss of life had been due to the negligent handling of the car. The higher the degree of care demanded the more deterrent there would be to the careless driver.

With regard to the compulsory stop sign, his Honour said that the rule was a stringent one and was supposed to be obeyed. He was aware that it was not obeyed and that persons did not actually stop; but at all events it was 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 late 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 see whether a train was approaching and that if he did not do so he was negligent. That was the broad point