DAZZLING LIGHTS

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXV, Issue 23175, 22 October 1938, Page 16

DAZZLING LIGHTS

DUTY OF MOTORISTS ACCIDENT SEQUEL IN COURT . COMMENT BY THE JUDGE DRIVER ACQUITTED BY JURY [BY TELEGRAPH —PRESS ASSOCIATION] CHRISTCHURCH, Fridas Arising out of a collision between a motor-car and a cyclist on the West Coast Road, the driver. t>f the car, Robert Eric Milliken, was found not guilty wheii he appeared before Mr. Justice Nbrthcroft in the Supreme Court to-day, charged that he negligently drove a motor-car,, thereby causing bodily injury to Albert Edward Herbert Vince.. Mr. A. W. Brown prosecuted 'knd Dfr. A. L. Haslam appeared for accused.. Vince, said Mr. Brown, was approaching Bi'ccarton along a stretch of straight'road near Yaldhurst. The accused, Milliken, was driving toward Christchurch from Sprngfield and overtook the cydist. Coming the opposite way was a car, which, according to Milliken, had very bright lights. Milliken said subsequently I;hat he was dazfeled and did not see the. cyclist until he was almost on him. fy ■ No Sinister Aspect The.'question was whether Milliken ■waa negligent in going on instead of ■topping when he was for all practical purposes blinded. There was no sinister! aspect of the case. Milliken travelled about 100 yds after striking - the cyclist, but gave the reasonable explanation that the injured man had been thrown on to the front of the cir; and he feared that by suddenly braiing lie would jolt the man off. evidence, Dr. Haslam, in. his address, pointed out that there was no suggestion that Milliken had taken liquor, that he was driving too fast or tm His wrong side, or that he ran As a possible explanation of why Milliken did not see the red reflector on Vince's machine Dr. Haslam drew attention to the weakness of the headlights on the car. it. ; . I'-; Standard ol Care The facts were not in dispute, said His Honor. The only allegation of the Crown was that Milliken did not see the cyclist as he should have done. As Milliken said he was not dazzled until the, last moment the jury might consider why he did not see the cyple beiore he was dazzled, or if he was dajttled for some time,' was he entitled to3continue ? I*What is to be the position," asked His '-'of. cyclists, pedestrians or others? Are th&y to be run over, injrnpd, maimed and perhaps killed because a motorist corfiqiues to travel when he cannot see thehv they being in . proper placq on the road ? Here is' a man on a cycle properly equipped with every warning device, ye* he is/run into and gravely injured and may have been killed by a motorist who says merely that he could not see him."

—lt was.the jury's duty, His Honor added, to establish a standard of care ? required; bjr motorists. The jury returned with a verdict of not guilty