RESPONSIBILITY FOR AVOIDING ACCIDENTS

Manawatu Times, Volume LIV, Issue 6946, 27 June 1929, Page 8

RESPONSIBILITY FOR AVOIDING ACCIDENTS

Devolves Equally Upon Motorist and Pedestrian

BOTH ARE NEGLIGENT, SAYS CORONER

An interesting discussion concerning tlie duties of motorists in maintaining a clear visibility under wet weather conditions, arose out of an inquest conducted by the Coroner (Mr. A. J. Graham) in Palmerston North yesterday morning. The inquiry concerned the death of a young woman who died in the Palmerston North public hospital on June 12 as the result of injuries received when she was run down by a car driven by Mr. T. F. Conway. In the course of his evidence, Mr. Conway stated that at the time of the accident, it had been raining heavily and visibility through his windscreen had been so bad that he had not perceived the victim of the accident until she had been only a foot to 18 inches away from the front of the car.

In addressing the Coroner at the con elusion of the evidence, Mr. A. M. Ongley, who appeared for the relatives of deceased, stressed the responsibility which fell upon motorists when driving under conditions of bad visibility. “Another death has been added to the toll of the motor car,” said Mr. Ongley. “Investigations will not give this unfortunate girl her life again but they may evolve some means by which these deaths can be avoided.” “It is not suggested for one moment that Mr. Conway was travelling at a speed which could be regarded as excessive in the circumstances, nor that he was on his wrong side of tlio road but the investigations at the inquest raise a definite question as to the duty of a car driver for the safety of the public. In this case we have a girl who was on her correct side of the road and who was proceeding carefully, yet before she had gone 100 yards, death had overtaken her. This was a street in which the driver admits that he would expect to encounter foot traffic—was the driver, then, entitled to drive along the road when he admits that he could not see where he was going, and risk running down a pedestrian? If he knew that there was likely to bo foot traffic on the road, the onus was on him to devise some means for ensuring the saftey of the public; he himself could not be hurt, because he was in a strong car. We have, in this case, the evidence of two other witnesses, who both state that they could see the girl some chains away but the driver of the car could not, bceauso he had a wet windscreen, with <a very primitive device for keeping it dry, clouding his view. Ho might as well have had a board.

“A driver either should not have a * wet windscreen or he should not travel —that is his duty. There must be some onus on him if he brings a dangerous vehicle on the road. If he cannot see more than 18 inches along the road, he should not have a vehicle on the road. As long as this sort of thing is allowed to continue, these deaths will result. L submit that it is negligence for a driver to drive at all when he cannot see through his windscreen.” The Coroner: On the broad principle, that is. I do not think that there was negligence in this case. Mr. Conway took all precautions except, perhaps, with regard to the windscreen. Mr. Ongley: Exactly. Question of Fact.

Mr. M. H. Oram, who appeared for Mr. Conway, had something to say on the other side of the case. He pointed out that the investigations were not concerned with an appeal to sympathy, although the sympathy of everyone would go out to the bereaved relatives of the unfortunate victim. They were called on to investigate facts alone. These showed that the one independent witness m the case had formed the opinion that the accident, had been caused by the deceased girl suddenly stepping out towards the middle of the road. Mr. Ongley had forgotten to mention that a passenger travelling with Mr. Conway had been looking round the end of the windscreen and had not had his View obstructed, yet ho had seen oven less than had Mr. Conway. He would point out that not only was there a anty on motorists hut there was one on pedestrians as well. Both were Users of the road. The evidence showed that the unfortunate girl had held an umbrella right over her head. One was thcrcfoie driven to the conclusion that deceased had been so intent on keeping herself dry that she had failed to _ keep a proper lookout. Added to this, they had the fact that sho had had bad eyesight and had been wearing glasses. The evideneo showed plainly that all reasonable precautions had been taken by Mr. Conway. . . In returning a verdict of accidental death, the Coroner concurred with Mr. Oram in this view. He had listened with interest to the remarks of Mr. Ongley. Admittedly, a very great responsibility fell upon motorists to tako all precautions to avoid accidents but at the same time, he agreed with rlr. Oram that there was an equal responsibility npon pedestrians to take all steps to assist motorists. “We hear much of negligence on the part of motorists but I am bound to say that there is an equal degree ot negligence on the part of pedestrians, concluded Mr. Graham.