A CHILD’S DEATH

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18420, 5 December 1921, Page 3

A CHILD’S DEATH

KILLED BY MOTOR LORRY. NO NEGLIGENCE ON PART OF DRIVER. An inquest was held at the Hospital by Mr J. K. Bartholomew, S.M., on Saturday morning into the circumstances surrounding the death of the child, William Alexander Oudney, who was knocked clown by a motor lorry in Castle street on Friday attornoon and died while being conveyed to the hospital. Mr W. G. Huy appeared in the interests of the child's father, and Mr J. M. Paterson for Messrs Struchan and Company, the owners of the lorry which caused the boy’s death. Tne police were represented by Sergeant Shanahan. vVilliam Oudney, the father of the boy, who was two and a-hulf years old, identified the body. Samuel Maddock, a mechanic employed by Messrs Straohan and Company, staled that ho was in the lorry with the driver. They were going in a northerly direction along Castle street, when re heard an exclamation '•cm the driver, and saw a boy’s head above cm radiator. The driver swerved into the pavement, stopped the lorry, and picked up the boy who was lying in the road between the tram rails and the pavement. Witness estimated that tne boy was about 3yds in front of the lorry wiien he first saw him. He believed the boy was standnit and he did not think the driver had a chance of avoiding the child. Dr Harrison came up with his motor car and took the | child to the hospital. Replying to Mr Hay witness said that there was no traffic about, and he would be surprised if the marks showed that the lorry was turned out to the tramline. The lorry would be travelling eight or 10 miles an hour. When the boy was first seen the near wheel of the lorry was about 3yds or 4vds from the kerbing, and the driver attempted to cut between tue boy and the kerbing. , To Mr Paterson: Immediately he made the exclamation the driver swerved. George Jbieph Williamson, manager for Bray Bros., said that he was going south along Castle street and saw the accident. Two little boys were standing on the kerb on the opposite side of the road, and the lorry was being driven at the ordinary speed with two of the wheels on the tramline. One of the boys ran across the street in front of the lorry, which was about a chain and a-half away. The lorry drew away to the. loft from which witness concluded that" 1 the driver of the lorry had noticed the boy and was trying to avoid him. The boy looked around and started to run back. The motor had approached so close that it struck him and he fell between the two front wheels, the righthand back wheel passing over his head. At that time the lorry was turning in towards the kerb Questioned by Sergeant Shanahan, witness said he thought that if the child had gone on and not turned back the accident would not have happened. He could not whether the driver could have avoided the child. Albert Henry Ledgerwood, the driver, said the lorry was a three-ton Albion. He noticed two little children on the kerb qjter he had passed Union street, and one of Bhcm ran out.' He (witness) was on the left hand side of the tram track at that time, and did not change his direction until he saw the boy hesitate. He .then pulled to the left to avoid him. He next saw the boy’s head above the radiator and stopped the lorry. Ho jumped down and picked U)5 the boy, who was bleeding from the head. The boy was picked up about a length and a-half behind the lorry. These lorries could be pulled up within their own length. To Mr Hay: He thought there was enough room for him to get in between the boy and the gutter. He (witness) swerved in and watched the other child to see what ho was going to do. He did not actually see deceased running from the tramline back to the side' of the street. Dr MTnnes, junior house surgeon, stated that he saw the child shortly after its admission to the Hospital and it was then dead. In his opinion death was caused by the injuries’ to the head. Mr Bartholomew said the respective positions of the child and the lorry immediately before the accident did not seem to be’ quite clear. It was, however, -clear that the driver was going at an ordinary and reasonable speed when the child ran out in front, hestitated, and then doubled back. The driver had swerved, but the child had got too close and got underneath. It might bo that the driver had committed an error of judgment, but on the evidence, and taking into consideration all the circumstances,, negligence could not bo imputed. The driver had a duty to the child on the footpath, because he might have tried to follow the first child. The driver might have been guilty of an error of judgment, but the evidence did not show that he was guilty of negligence. He would return a verdict that death was duo to injuries N to the head, through being accidentally knocked down by it motor lorry.