DAZZLING LIGHTS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23637, 22 October 1938, Page 14

DAZZLING LIGHTS

CAUSE OF ACCIDENT DRIVER OF CAR ACQUITTED AN INTERESTING VERDICT (Per United Press Association) CHRISTCHURCH, Oct. 21. Arising out of a collision between a motor car and a cyclist on the West Coast road, the driver of the car, Robert Eric Milliken, was found not guilty when he appeared before Mr Justice Northcroft 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, and Dr A. L. Haslam appeared for the accused. Vince, said Mr Brown, was approaching Riccarton along a stretch of straight road near Yaldhurst, and the accused, Milliken, was driving towards Christchurch from Springfield, and overtook the cyclist. Coming the opposite way was a car, which, according to Milliken, had very bright lights. Milliken said subsequently that he was dazzled and did not see the -yclist until he was almost on him. The question was whether Milliken was negligent in going on instead of stopping when he was, for all practical. purposes, blinded. There was no sinister aspect of the case. Milliken travelled about TOO yards after striking, the cyclist, but gave the reasonable explanation that the injurqd man had been thrqwn on to the front of the,, car, and he feared that, by suddenly braking, he would jolt the man off.

Calling no 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 was on his wrong side, or that he ran away. 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. 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 cycle before he was dazzled, or, if he was dazzled for some time, was he entitled to continue?

“What is to be the position?” asked his Honor, “ of cyclists, pedestrians, or others? . Are they to be run over, injured, maimed, and perhaps killed because a motorist continues to travel when he cannot see them, they being in their proper place on the road? Here is a man on a cycle, properly equipped with every warning device, yet he is run into and gravely injured, and may have been killed by a motorist who says merely that he could not see him.” It was the jury’s duty, his Honor added, to establish the standard of care required of motorists. The jury returned with a verdict of not guilty.