MOTOR FATALITY SEQUEL

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20251, 10 May 1929, Page 14

MOTOR FATALITY SEQUEL

DRIVER OF VAN CHARGED.

PROMPT ACQUITTAL BY JURY.

DIFFICULTIES OF MOTORISTS

THE UNEXPECTED EMERGENCY

The death of a child two years of ago after being struck by a motor van in "Dominion Road on February 16 resulted in the driver of tho van, Hoctor Robert Sommerville (Mr. McVcagh), being charged in the Supreme Court yesterday with negligent driving so as to cause death. The victim of the accident was George Summers, .son of Mr Richard H. Summers, of Jellicoe Avenue, Mount RosItill. The accused is a young butcher.

Mr. Meredith. Crown Prosecutor, said tho case was one of serious importance. Tho safety of pedestrians had been changed by the advent of heavy, swiftmoving motor vehicles, and never a day passed but somewhere in Now Zealand deaths occurred through motor vehicles. The standard of care set up by juries for motorists had a widespread effect upon tho caro exercised by motorists. Other people beside motorists had a right to use the highways. A driver was bound to see that everything about his car was in order arid that he himself was fit to control it. He was bound to drive it at. a speed which would enable him to meet emergencies, and ho was bound to keep a good look out. Serious Features Absent, In this case there were none of the serious features occurring in other such cases. The vehicle was in good order, and there was no suggestion of insobriety or of excessive speed. The suggestion was that tho accused was for somo reason not exorcising the care and keeping tho look out required of him. The child had been playing on a Saturday afternoon in front of his home and had wandered on to the street. When picked up after the accident it was found that his skull had been gravely fractured, and he died two hours later at tho hospital. A direct eye-witness of tho accident said the road was quite clear save for Sommerville's van and the child, and that there was no reason why Sommerville should not have seen and avoided the child. Accused told the police that he did not see the boy until he was right on top of him.

The first witness was the father of the child, who said he had missed the boy just before the accident and had sent his older brother to find him. Fie came back with news of the accident. The deceased had been wheeling a irolley. 'The only eye-witness of the occurrence, Cyril Jasper Ward, said he had seen the child pushing his trolley 50 yards away, about the middle of the concrete. When ho first- saw tho van it would be about 12ft. from the child. He could not say •whether, the child had come suddenly from the side of the road. He saw no other vehicle. The van was travelling at a moderate speed. He thought the front axle hit the child on tho head, and the van continued over him but the wheels did not touch him. Witness signalled the driver to stop.

Missing Witness Warned. The absence of Dr. C. J. C. Britton, of the Auckland Hospital staff, when he was called for to give evidence after the mid-day adjournment was commented on by Mr. Justice Herdman. "The doctor should bo here; he has no business not to turn up," said His Honor. Both counsels agreed to accept the doctor s evidence as given in the lower Court, but His Honor added to Mr. Meredith, "You had better tell him that if he does not attend next time he receives a subpoena he will be fined." Constable J. A. Du Temple said he found the foot-brake of the van \eiy severe and the hand-brake useless. The accused, in evidence, said he had been driving motor-cars of different makes for three years. At the time of the accident ho was intendiug to stop at his own shop nearby and was travelling about 15 miles an hour. He was keeping a good'look-out, but ho did not see the child until he was practically on it. He immediately applied his brakes, and the car skidded Direction for Acquittal.

His Honor told the jury the case was cne in which considerable' doubt existed, and he did not think there should be any "conviction but an acquittal. He was -bound to tell them that he did not think jt was a strong case, or that it would be safe to convict, as there were a number of circumstances that might have happened. No one knew how the child ' £ot on to the road, and when such a matter was in doubt there should not be b conviction. . His Honor commented ,on the cluli,fealties of motorists in having to meet ••.emergencies .No matter how careful tlicy were and to what strict iulcs conformed sometimes an . emergency " cropped up that made it impossible to | - avert a tragedy In the vicinity of / - schools signs of warning to traffic were erected showing that the liability of 'children to rush off the footpath was re cognised. It might Tie that in this case the driver had been faced with a sudden emergency, and notwithstanding the fact ■ that he had been exercising due care he could not avert a catastrophe. H wic.Y accepted that view then there should be «n acquittal. The jury immediately agreed on a ,verdict of not guilty without retiring.