THE ROSLYN TRAIN FATALITY.

Otago Witness, Volume 06, Issue 2899, 6 October 1909, Page 18

THE ROSLYN TRAIN FATALITY.

VERDICT OF ACCIDENTAL DEATH.

The coroner (Mt Widdowson) sat -on ti» 29th Sept. to furthei inquire into the -ciftJUmetenoes which caused the death of ' Withelmma HeaKSry, aged one year and 10 .months, whose foot was crushed by one of the Dunedin and Kostyn Company's trams on Saturday, September 4, and who died in the Hospital :cix day* later. The -inquest was opened on September 16, and . .was continued on September 17, when it was fuwlher adjourned. Mr Payne ap-, peared for the .eonmativ, Mr Hanlon for the gripman (E. H. Downes), and , Mr Hay fox deceased's f atiher. ltie child died after an operation which was necessitated through gangrene setting in. According to the doctor's evidence the child would have died independently of tihe operation. Mr R. R. Douglas wae foreman of the jury. Edward Roberts, ensinear, said he had had experience in cable tramways. He put down the Kaikorai Company's line. He had viewed the Roslyn Company's oars, also the Fell brake of the same company. He did not agree with the suggestion that if the body of the car was nearer to the running rail it would be .a. protection to the public, especially to children. If the driver kept the front windows clear he had a good sight of tbe road. Persons standing on the side of the oar would not interfere with the driver. The driver's place was to look ahead, and not at the sides. The Edinburgh cars had the screw grippor. It was tried in Dunwhn, but it was not quick enough to aot. It was all right on a moderate gTade. To Mr Hay : The depressions prevented a safeguard being applied to the oars; a safeguard could cot be placed low enough. If the depressions were filled up it would mean, groat exptn-sa to th-a company, [f the child came towards tha- car diagonally the driver would have seeu it in the o retina ry couisa of things — that was, if there was no impediment to his view. Passengers should not be allowed to stand in the front compartment. \V;l!ia.m John Thomas manager o£ tbe Ros'yn Company, said he agreed with Mr RoboriVs evidence. T--) Sub-Inspector. Phair: No definite in- i s( motions were i^suod by the comj>any to drivers about pas-<Migprs standing in tho front compartment. It was l«ft to tho discretion of the drivnr. If his view was obstructed ha would request the conductor j to remove t.ho per-on or pe-rsons in hi.s I luio. of sight. The car that caasid tho .•u-cid-jii-t was not a beiiviiy-loarlfd o.ie. ThM-j were 3S por-ons o:i i - , v, hen it loft Ran tray street. It wa-. pint of the conductors duty to assist rhe gripman in koeipiing a sbai^p look-out. The conductor was in charge of oho oar from a timekeeping point of \iev/, but from an operati'i<r point of viaw the driver was in cfiarge. lie could not say whether the gripixian could have seen this child. He though* the diiver must have had a fair view of his track, other wise he would not have gone on. The driver had been about 10 years in the company's service. For six years and a-half he had acted as driver, ffo was a capable and mosb careful man, and wii looked on ns cne of tho best man lin the service. Tho front compa.rtment | of tho car would s«'a.t 10 adult persons, r A\, a. pjtich 12 could b<! beated. To the jury : Tho cam ivore licensee) to carry 30 [ja-swngers. Thore wore eiefot passengers above the licenced number. He diid not call it an overloaded car. Fiom the evidence of a lad there were two passengers standing in the front compartment, the balance being seated. ; To Mr Hay : It would bo well to make a rosfulation that no per«o-n tihould btan-d in tlw fron^ compii-tment. By the advice of their council Edward j Henry Dovvnes, gripman, and the conductor declin-sd to reply to questions. The Coroner, addressing the jury, reviewed the evidence. It was clear that tho brakes were applied pretty quickh 1 . It also appeared that the car must have travelled further than tl.o witnesses said, beeauso tho child seemed to have been dragged a little distance. Ifc was apparent from the evidence that there must have been 12 or 13 persons in the front compartment. It would bo for the jury, apart from tho cause of death, to say whether there had been negligence on the pirt of the officials in charge of the car. Had they exercised reasonable and com-mon-sense care, attention, and skill? If, in tbe opinion of the jury, they had been grossly negligent, and through their negligence the death of any person resulted, they would be guilty of manslaughter. As to the line of vision of 'a driver" , it might 6e that if the gripman in this case had kept a keen lookout he would have seen the child. Tbe child appeared, however, to have been in no danger until it started to run, which was when it was within three or four yards of the line. It seemed to him that the gripman did all he could in the matter when he was warned by the boy Bell that thoro was danger. For himself, he thought the evidence a« to

negligence was very' weak in this case. The jury might also consider it advisable to" bring in a rider bearing. on tie safety of the cars. If they thought -fit they ■ might direct the attention' of 4&e authorities to the construction of the cars with & view to learning whether ■ a, . safeguard could tot be devised as a protection to* human life and limb in caa^.of accident. The jjity, -ifter^a "jfttdrement of heJff-an- * hour, returned "&ie '^.folloipfng verdict: — ? " That the deceased died xm - 'September - 10, 1909. at the' Hospital "Dunedin, the cause Of death "being shock, following injuries received in a tramway accident in Rattray street on the 4th inst.. and the amputation of the letr, which was neoefitafced to prevent death from gangrene, the accident being a collision of the deceased with a cable-car of the Roslyn Tramway, . Company, resulting in the child's foot being run over and the leg' injured. Tb« jury is of 'opinion that the' evidence adduced do«s not enable it to say whether or not there ws« negligence on the part of the officials in charge of the car or cither of them. As a rider to its ve--diofc tho jury desires to add that in i' i opinion the attention of the proper aufch~»-'-ties should -h<* called to the want of »-«•»- teetion to life and Jimb in the pw"""* 1 ; cable-oars in cases of accident, and rr-" Ithev be requested to s^o whether r- -- such ram can be sufficiently oqui^oer' ' ; t>at direction. \s a second rider tlv V- - is cf opinion thnt no ■ner«on should 1 » ' allowed to stand in the front eonv->arrrr«*»'"~ of any cpv o- on t^e nu^side n!a.tforr*"» or, at anyrafce, forward cf tho 'gripman."