NEGLIGENT DRIVING ALLEGEDLY CAUSES DEATH OF BROTHER

Manawatu Times, Volume LIV, Issue 6887, 18 April 1929, Page 9

NEGLIGENT DRIVING ALLEGEDLY CAUSES DEATH OF BROTHER

Case of M. O’Donnell PLEADS NOT GUILTY AND COMMITTED FOR TRIAL After a lengthy hearing, Messrs. W G. Ashworth and G. H. Espincr, J’sP., yesterday found a prima facie case against Maurice Clement Albrey O’Donnell, a schoolmaster, of Mata£uau, who appeared in tho Palmerston North Magistrate’s Court on a charge of negligent driving on January 23. The case aroso out of an accident on the Ihakara hill, near Shannon, when a three seater oar driven by defendant. Maurice O’Donnell, collided with another car driven by a youth named Ronald Henry Dunbar-King, and as a result went over a steep bank on the side of. the road. Tho car is stated to have fallen sheer for 20 feet and to have como to rest 84 feet down tho slope where defendant’s brother t Thomas Prancis Joseph O’Donnell who owned the car in which he had been a passenger, was found to have sustained severe injuries. He was removed to the Palmerston North hospital where after lingering on for eight days, he died on January 31. An inquest was held in Palmerston North later, when the Coroner (Mr. A. J. Graham) in returning a verdict of accidental death, commented adversely upon the handling of the car by Maurice O’Donnell. "

When the case against O’Donnell opened yesterday, Mr. A. M. Ongley appeared for defendant, while SeniorSergeant Whitehouse conducted, the case for the police. After hearing the evidence, the Bench committed defendant for trial at the next sittings of the Supreme Court in Palmerston North, a plea of not guilty being entered. In outlining the case Senior Sergeant Whitehouse stated that on January 23 last, defendant had been driving his brother’s car from Levin to Wanganui. In the front seat of the car had been defendant’s brother, now deceased, and ■his brother’s wife. A collision had occurred with a car driven by Mr Dun-bar-King, of Wellington on a horse-shoe bend near Shannon, and as a iesult of this, defendant’s brother had received injuries from which he had died in hospital eight days later. • At an inquest subsequently held, defendant had admitted that he had known that his foot-brake was defective when he had left Levin and also that when he had seen that a collision with the other car was imminent, he had failed to apply either foot or hand brake. Medical evidence was given by John Miller, medical praetioner, of Palmerston North, who stated that defendant’s brother had died as the result of a dislocated neck and crushed spinal cord, his injuries having been consistent with his having been involved in an accident. Measurements Taken. Constable Blaikie, of Shannon, stated that on March 13, with Constable Comgf ton, he had inspected the scene of the accident which had occurred on the Ihakara hill near Shannon. He had taken measurements and photographs of the bend of the road where defendant’s car had collided with that driven by Mr Dunbar-King. The constable produced the photographs and stated that the measurements taken showed the width of the culvert situated at the junction of the main road and a by-road right on the bend, to be 20 feet. The width of metal on the main road on the Levin side of the culvert had been 21 feet and the distance from the culvert to the fence had been 25ft. 9 ins. On the Shannon side of the culvert the width of metal on the road had been 19 feet. The slope of the road on the bend was towards the clay bank on the inside. The road was: banked up on the outside to a height of 18 inches. The distance from the culvert on the bend to the place where defendant’s car had gone over tho bank was CO feet. The metal on the road extended to the edge of the bank in

question. The collision was stated to have taken place in the centre of the metal road and the car had gone a distance of 84 feet down the bank. There had been a straight drop of probably 20 feet. Road signs had been erected at both approaches to the corner. In answer to the senior sergeant the constable statqd that two cars coming from opposite directions coqld safely pass on the corner provided that reasonable care was taken by the drivers. Further police evidence was given by Constable Compton who had been relieving at the Shannon station on the date of the accident. He had been called to the scene of the collision and on arrival had been shown the point of impact by the parties concerned. Defendant’s car had been over the bank and one of the passengers, Thomas O’Donnell, had received medical ..attention as tho result of injuries received. To Mr Ongley witness stated that ho had seen no marks on the road wdicre either driver had put on brakes. Other Driver’s Evidence. The next witness was. Ronald Henry Dunbar-King who had been the driver of the car with which defendant’s car had collided. On January 23, ho had been driving towards Wellington from Palmerston North and had been involved in an accident on a bend near Shannon. Approaching this corner, he had been driving at about 15 m.p.h. in top gear and on his correct side of the road. The other cut had “shot” found the. corner at a speed which he estimated at not less than 30 m.p.h. On perceiving this car witness had pulled still further over to the lefthand side until he had been in danger of going over the bank. The other car, however, had struck the rear mudguard of witness's machine. Witness had pulled up and got out of his car to see defendant climbing up the bank. Defendant had told witness that his brother had been injured when the car had gone over and witness had summoned medical aid. Alleged Horn Not Sounded. In witness’s opinion a light car could not negotiate the corner in_ question at a speed of 30 m.p.h., without swinging out. There had been a distance of about 12 feet between witness’s car and the bank. He had sounded his horn when approaching the corner, but had not heard any similar warning from the other car. Witness had been driving this particular car for about three and a-half months prior, to tho accident. .To Mr Ongley, witness stated that tho collision had occurred right on the bend. He had pulled up before he had reached the cross-road which formed the main road at the bend. Mr Ongley then put it to witness that the accident- had occurred on the Shannon side of the bend ,and after some argument witness agreed. He would not say that he had seen the other car more than ten or twelve feet away before the collision. He had not put on his brakes until the impact occurred but had pulled up within a car-length. He had locked the wheels of his car but he had seen no mark on the road to show that the car had travelled any distance without the wheels revolving. Witnesses Discussed Accident. He did not remember the widow of deceased saying to him that the accident had been his fault. He had been represented by a solicitor at the inquest but denied that he had had consultation with counsel before giving evidence. All witnesses who had been in his car had discussed the matter and had agreed that defendant had been travelling at too great a speed to negotiate the corner safely. He could not remember having heard it alleged that ho had been responsible for the accident through trying to cut the corner. In reply to the senior sergeant witness stated that he remembered defendant saying something about witness having been on his wrong side but he could not remember exactly what it had been. In tho box Albert Gorden DunbarKing, the father of the previous witness, stated that he had been a passenger in the car which his son had been driving. He corroborated his son’s evidence as to the speed at which the two cars had been travelling and also ir. the other particulars given by the previous witness. ' He had seen the injured man who had said to him, “Don’t touch me; I’m done.” His son was a very careful driver. To Mr Ongley witness stated that he had scarcely perceived the other car before it had been on top of them, and the collision had occurred.

Mr Ongley: Then you only saw the car for about a second before the collision and in that time you judged the speed of defendant’s car? Witness: Yes. Witness: I would not be surprised to know that if a second elapsed between the time you saw the other car ten feet away and the moment of the collision, tho other car would have been only travelling at 5 m.p.h. Witness: Twould not be surprised at all. In reply to further questions witness admitted that he had talked over the i accident with his sons before the inquest and they had agreed that the speed of the other car had not been less than 30 m.p.h. “Travelling Too Fast.” Albert Gordon Dunbar-King, anothei passenger in the car with which defendant collided, corroborated the evidence given by his father and brother. There had been room for defendant’s car to pass between the car in which witness had been driving and the bank. After the collision witness had had some conversation with defendant and had told him that he had been travelling at two great a speed to negotiate tlic corner. In reply defendant had denied that he had been travelling fast. Defendant had not made any allegation that witness’s car had been on tho wrong side of the road. As far as witness could remember O’Donnell had also said something about his steering-gear having broken. In reply to a question from Mr. Ongley, witness admitted that he had not seen the other ear until the moment of impact but he had judged that the car had been travelling fast by

the distance it had travelled after the collision and the force of the impact. This closed the case for the prosecution. Plea For Dismissal. In addressing the Bench, Mr. Ongley submitted that there had been no evidence brought before the Court to justify the case being taken to the Supreme Court. The charge against his client was one of reckless driving, which had beeu the cause of the death of his brother. This was only one branch of the crime of manslaughter. The evidence called in support of tho allegations of negligent driving eamc only from three persons, who had been in the other car involved in the accident. The only evidence of negligence submitted was that defendant’s car had negotiated the corner too fast. As far as this evidence was concerned, the father and one son had admitted that they had not seen defendant’s car until the moment of the collision. He submitted, therefore, that it was impossible in the space of time which had elapsed, before the two cars had come together, for any of the witnesses to have judged with any accuracy, the pace at which his client’s car had been travelling. Assuming however, that the oar driven by defendant bad been travelling fast, there was nothing at all in the evidence to show that this fact had caused tho accident. As a matter of fact, the evidence had shown that defendant bad actually turned the corner when the collision occurred, because it bad been admitted that King’s car had been pulled up a car length on tho Shannon side of the crossroad at the bend. Giving the King 3 all they asked for, tho evidence had shown that defendant’s car had not been more than nine feet out from the bank on tho corner and in this case, defendant must have made a wonderful turn if he had been travelling at 30 miles per hour. What had actually happened was that tho cars had been too close together and when defendant’s machine had struck the rear of Dunbar-King’s car, it had been deflected across the road and over the bank. The car did not belong to defendant but ho knew that the footbrako was defective. That was not his responsibility, however, and counsel submitted that the deceased brother, who had been sitting beside rthe driver, had been a consenting party to defendant's actions. If ho had considered that defendant’s driving was negligent, he could have taken over from him. Also, defendant’s movements had been cramped by the fact thaty in the front seat of the car had been his brother and his brother’s wife and child. The evidence submitted as to defendant’s alleged negligence had not been of an independent nature but had come from interested parties in the person of the Dunbar-Kings. In conclusion, Mr. Ongley submitted that on the evidence, no jury would possibly convict. Ho asked their Worships to exercise their power and dismiss the cose, on the grounds that no reasonable jury would convict on the evidence before the court and that the country and the parties concerned should not bo put to the exp.cnso of taking the matter to the Supremo Court. After hearing Mr. Ongley, the Justices announced that they would retire to consider the case. On returning, the Justices announced that they found that a prima facie case had been shown. Accused pleaded not guilty and reserved his defence. Ho was committed for trial to the next sitting of the Supreme Court in Palmerston North bail being fixed in self of £IOO and one outside surety for a similar amount.