NEGLIGENT DRIVING

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXXI, 17 March 1937, Page 6

NEGLIGENT DRIVING

VERDICT OF GUILTY SEQUEL TO SPRING GROVE FATALITY ACCUSED REMANDED FOR SENTENCE After a retirement of 2fi rninuies the jury brought in a verdict ot guilty in the Supreme Court yesterday against Louis Monte Lammas on a charge of negligently driving a motor car at Spring Clove on the 29th November, thereby causing ihc deaths of Stanley Joseph Easliford and Leslie tiansoii. Hi:; Honour. Mr Justice E. 1 1. Ncvthcrofi was on the bench. Mr C. R. Fell. Crown Prosecutor, conducted the case for the Crown and Mr W. V. R. Fletcher appeared for accused. EVIDENCE CONTINUED Continuing his evidence in the afternoon Traffic Inspector J. T. Brough gave details of Ihc damage to the car, the chief damage being on the off side. Driving on country roads at night traffic could be picked up easily with the headlights of a car if there were no other headlights about. In answer to Mr Fletcher witness said the braking effect would be affected if the brakes were wet. It was not a breach for two cyclists to ride abreast. Constable Joseph Houston, of Wakefield, gave evidence of his visit to the scene of the accident. He asked Lammas what had happened and he replied that after passing another vehicle he had run into cyclists spread across the road. Asked concerning his speed, Lammas replied between 40 and 45 m.p.h. In answer to another question concerning drink accused had said he had had two shandies at Wakefield. Bashford’s cycle was 36 feet away from his body. From an inspection made it was shown that the distance from the first piece of broken reflector to the position of Bashford’s body was 133 feet 9 inches, while the distance from the reflector to the car was 286 feet 3 inches.

STATEMENT MADE BY ACCUSED

The witness produced a statement made to him by accused. In the statement accused said he passed a car, blew the horn and then saw the cyclists about 14 yards ahead. By then there was no hope of dodging them. He did not know whose car it was he passed. At that time he was travelling between 40 and 45 miles per hour. The brakes of the car became wet when he djrove through the Wai-iti stream at Brightwater at 5.30 o’clock in the afternoon and did not operate as they should have. He admitted having two shandies at the Wakefield Hotel where he was a boarder.

Continuing, the constable said he could not find any car in the district which had been passed by Lammas just prior to the accident.

In cross-examination witness said the statement was taken about midnight on the night of the accident. Accused was then suffering from shock.

Senior Sergeant C. Petersen said he went out to the accident that night, passing through several drizzling showers, but he had no difficulty in seeing cyclists on the roads. Edgar Herman Clark, medical officer at Nelson Hospital gave evidence of the injuries sustained by Bashford and Hanson. That evidence concluded the case for the Crown. ACCUSED IN WITNESS BOX Louis Monte Lammas said on the night in question ho left Wakefield at 8.15 to go to Brightwater. About threequarters of a mile from Wakefield he passed one car and passed another one about 200 yards from the church. He was alone in the car. The first thing he saw when approaching the cyclists was a dull red reflector and then two cyclists on the road. The distance between Bashford and Barlow was abo',it 4 feet and the distance between the next two cyclists on the inside, also about 4 feet. He was then 14 to 15 yards away. The cyclists made no movement in trying to get off the road. The brakes were in first class order. When he saw the cyclists just prior to the accident, he applied his brakes but they did not operate. At 5.30 o’clock he passed through the Wai-iti stream at Brightwater and had gone to Wakefield.

In cross-examination accused said he had had no occasion to apply the brakes of the car be,tween the time he passed through the Wai-iti stream and the time of the accident. He knew the church would be coming out and was watching for traffic. He remembered sounding his horn. He admitted that his previous statement concerning passing another car in front of the church was incorrect. Frederick Stickley, of Spring Grove, said he had been to Wakefield that night. Mr Roy Palmer passed him at Wakefield and witness followed Mr Palmer until he -came to the Church of Christ at Spring Grove. When he was 30 yards off the church gate three cyclists came out of the gate and he passed them 20 yards past the gate. They were in the middle of the road. When nearly passing them he touched the horn on his car, and the cyclist on the outside turned to look at the car. Witness was on the extreme right of the road when he passed the cyclists. Witness stopped his car on the left side of the road waiting for the cyclists with the intention of speaking to them for the manner in which they had come out of the church gate, but they did not come down the road and so he drove info his property. JUDGE SUMS UP After counsel had addressed the jury his Honour summed up. He said there was no substantial conflict in the evidence. The facts showed that the four young men were abreast at the time, and took up a good width of the road. How they wore proceeding did 'not matter. The fact that the accused was travelling between 40 and 45 miles per hour was not in dispute as he had admitted it in his evidence. The task of the jury was to determine what was the proper

conclusion from the facts. The matter of motor accidents was exceedingly grave and the jury's task was more serious than many thought. "STANDARD SET BY JURIES” "The standard set by juries in such cases is the standard of care which motorists will take,” said his Honour. “If juries set a lax standard, then the motorists will be lax in their care; if juries require a proper standard. then motorists will act likewise.” The fact that the cyclists were spread across the road had nothing to do with it. A motorist had no right to be driving at a rate too fast for him to pull up in his range of visibility. It was the duty of a driver to go at a speed at which he could pul 1 up in case of danger whether caused by children running out onto the road, a wandering horse, or careless cyclists. In this case the driver was travelling at 40 miles per hour and first saw the cyclists 14 yards ahead. If the jury thought it was careful- driving they would acquit him, and if not then they should find accused guilty. The jury retired at 4 p.rn. and returned at 4.20 p.rn. with a verdict of guilty. The accused was remanded for sentence.