BRIDGE TRAGEDY

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23688, 21 December 1938, Page 8

BRIDGE TRAGEDY

CAUSE OF COLLAPSE INQUEST ON VICTIMS THE CORONER’S FINDING (Per United Press Association) TAIHAPE, Dec. 20. The inquest on the victims of the Hihitahi Bridge tragedy—B W. Colwell, A. W. Davidson, L. J Bourke, and A. T. Moore —which occurred at ■ndnight on November 19, wher an army lorry returning to Waipukurau with 15 artillerymen crashed into the river when crossing the bridge spanning Hautapa Stream, wai resumed before the coroner, Mr E. Loader, at Taihape, to-day. Four men lost their lives and seven were injured in the crash. Dr N. A. Foden, Crown Law Office, Wellington, appeared for the police, and associated with him were Inspector J. Lander (Wanganui) and Sergeant J. M. McCrae (Taihape) Mr R. C. Ongley appeared for Hobson, the driver of the lorry. Dr H. M. May (Taihape) said that b. W. Colwell and L. J. Bourke died from drowning. Colwell had slight lacerated wounds about the head. Davidson' was pinned under the lorry, lying across his left side, and death was due to a crushed thorax. Moore had severe lacerations on the left side of the skull and haemorrhage from the nose, ears, and eyes. He was unconscious and remained so till death 24 hours later. Death was due to fracture of the base of the skull. The Driver’s Story

Alan Thomas Hobson, driver of the lorry, of Narrowneck, Auckland, said he recollected the evening of the accident. He had been driving for six months. He arrived at Taihape at 4.15 p.m. The lorry was easy to drive. This was the first time he had driven it, but he had driven the same make of lorry. Lance-bombardier Autridge was in charge of the party. Hobson said he had no drinks in Taihape on the day of the fatality. He had been given instructions not to drink. He left Taihape at 11.15 to return. Autridge and Auty were in front with him. Light rain was falling when he left Taihape. and visibility was not difficult. The other troops were in the back of the lorry. There was nothing to interfere with his driving or control. He reached the point on the road leading to the bridge without mishap. As soon as he saw the bridge he changed to low gear and reduced speed. He had his foot an the brake and approached the bridge at 15 miles per hour. He was not surprised to see the bridge, and there was nothing wrong with the bridge in the way of obstruction. He got on to the bridge all right. He got on to it squarely, and as far as he was aware the lorry did not touch the side of the bridge, which seemed to collapse all round as he got on to it. The next thing he knew he was in the river. There was no sound or impact. He did not feel the wheels come into contact with the side of the bridge. He had received no specific instructions regarding speed. The standing regulations said 20 miles an hour. Nobody distracted his attention approaching the bridge, and nothing was wrong with his vision.

To Mr R. C. Ongley, his counsel, he said he had been over f the road only when he came to Taihape. It was windy. To Dr Foden: He did not feel the wheels of the lorry leave the metal part of the road.

Other Passengers' Evidence

L. J. Auty stated in evidence that he was sitting in the front of the lorry at the time of the accident. He considered Gunner Hobson a good driver, who approached corners with caution The lorry was holding the road well. It entered the bridge squarely. He was wide awake. He did not feel the right side of the lorry touch the side of the bridge. They entered the bridge on the usual track. The bridge seemed to give way when the whole lorry got on to it. It was raining slightly when they approached the bridge, but this did not impair visibility. He could say definitely that the lorry did not touch the bridge. He would have been aware of the fact if the lorry had struck the bridge or the right front wheel had struck the bridge. Everything happened so quickly that it was possible he could not remember all the details.

To Mr Ongley: He did not know the width of the bridge, but there was ample room to pass over it. The vehicle did not veer over to the right. To the coroner: They approached the bridge at 15 miles per hour. Lance-bombardier Autridge said he was in charge of the party. Some members of the party had some drinks. He had a few. They were not prohibited from drinking He felt quite at ease with Hobson driving. One man missed the lorry. Witness sat in the front seat, and there was very little talking. Visibility was quite good. The lorry seemed to be on metal approaching the bridge. Gunner Hobson changed gear approaching the bridge. He did not feel any impact prior to the lorry going into the stream. His recollection of what happened ceased before the whole vehicle got on the bridge. The full length of the bridge was lit up by lights. He had no feeling of impending disaster, and he was certain he felt no decided impact before he found himself in the river. To Mr Ongley: He saw marks on the bridge and the approach to the structure, but was not prepared to say they were lorry marks In answer to a question, witness said he was certain Hobson had no drink on the day of the accident A Carrier’s Observations Samuel Freeman, carrier, of Karioi, said he arrived on the scene of the accident about midnight. _ He noticed as he approached the bridge that it had collapsed He saw the lorry in the river, and saw impressions of round grip tyre marks the side of the road, off the metal. These marks corresponded with the tyres of the lorry The marks were just barely off (possibly only a foot) the metal He noticed there was a dual mark off the metal in the direction of the marks in relation to the bridge, and deduced from the marks that it was impossible for the lorry to get on the bridge without striking it. His observations were made soon after the ’cident. and led him to believe that some part of the lorry struck the end strut. Two men were

In the cab of the lorry when he arrived. They seemed to be dazed by shock. Condition of the Bridge John McDonald, Rangitikei County overseer, said he arrived at about 1 a.m. on the scene of the accident. He thought from the tyre marks that the lorry had come in contact with the bridge. If the end strut was broken the bridge would collapse. Wallace Sturgeon, carrier and contractor. living at Hihitahi, near the bridge, said he arrived soon after the tragedy. On the same day as the accident he took a heavy load of about six and a-half tons over the bridge, at about 5.30 p.m. He did not hear the bridge break. He thought the bridge sound m every sense of the word. To the coroner; Sometimes 1 go over the bridge three or four times a day. There was no sign of a knock on the truss. , , Witness said he saw a damaged rail on the bridge. It was an easy bridge to negotiate at low speed. Norman Lyth, civil engineer, Public Works Department, residing at Wanganui, said he visited the scene of. the accident at 7 a.m. on Sunday, November 20. He could find nothing in the wreckage to indicate a flaw in the bridge. The mam strut on the right-hand side was missing. A piece of the end strut had been used on a fire lit at the scene of the accident. The bridge in question was of the home truss type, which stood up to the job well. There were many similar bridges in New Zealand. Witness added that the annual inspection of the bridge took place in March of this year. No defects were noticeable, and a further examination two months ago revealed nothing to indicate that the bridge would collapse when a lorry went on it. It was possible that if the end strut were broken the whole bridge would collapse. If there did happen to be a defect in a vital part that would also account for the lorry going into the stream. His examination revealed no such defect. He could find no wheel marks within 30 feet of the bridge, but there was a mark within 60 feet. In reply to Mr Foden, witness said that if the lorry got on to the bridge and the back of the vehicle struck the main strut it might dislodge it; Men Subject to Military Law Major R. S. Park said that the artillery men were under the orders of Bombardier Autridge on the day In question. He had something to do with the investigation of the accident from a staff point of view. He agreed that to embark upon theories as to what caused the collapse of the bridge would involve a theoretical and technical inquiry. To the coroner, witness said that the men were on a day’s holiday. With the exception of the driver, the .bombardier and the men on the lorry were subject to military law. Dr Foden pointed out that the cause of the collapse of the bridge did not come within the scope of the coroner’s inquiry* The Public Works Department and the military authorities were looking into the technical side of the accident. There was no suggestion of criminal neglect on the cart of the driver. The Coroner’s Finding

The coroner returned a verdict that Gunners Colville, Colwell, and Bourke died from drowning, Davidson met his death from injuries received when he was pinned down by the lorry, and Moore died in the Public Hospital at Taihape from injuries received in the accident. The coroner complimented the police, the medical practitioners, the hospital staff, and the others who had assisted at the time of the tragedy, apd expressed sympathy with the relatives of the deceased.

Major Park, on behalf of the military authorities, thanked all those who had rendered assistance.