JURY’S TASK

Southland Times, Issue 21772, 29 July 1932, Page 6

JURY’S TASK

CASES OF NEGLIGENCE REDUCING LOSS OF LIFE REFERENCE BY JUDGE (Per United Press Association.) Wellington, July 28. The great responsibility devolving upon juries who try cases in which there has been loss of life through the alleged negligence of a motorist was referred to by his Honour Mr Justice Reed, in directing the jury at the conclusion of the trial of James Thomas Rutherford. "The duty is cast upon juries to see if it is possible to reduce this shocking loss of life by insisting upon a high degree of care,” said his Honour. He also commented on the non-observ-ance by many motorists of the compulsory railway stop notice at level crossings. His Honour said without hesitation and with some experience of such cases that fully 90 per cent, of them were due to negligence and probably 10 per cent, to inevitable accident. Speed was often blamed but his experience was that speed was not often a factor. A careful driver took no risks. A careless driver often would take a risk. . His Honour said it was the juries of the Dominion that had set the degree of negligence they would excuse. The duty was cast upon juries to see if it was possible to reduce the shocking loss of life by insisting upon a high degree of care in the management of motor vehicles. If juries were strict it did not necessarily follow that the person concerned should be punished severely. It was of great importance, however, that a person should not escape being convicted where the jury was thoroughly satisfied there had been negligence and loss of life had been due to negligence. In the handling of a car the higher degree of care demanded the more deterrent there would be to the careless driver.

In regard to the compulsory stop sign, his Honour said the rule was a stringent one and was supposed to be obeyed. He was aware it was not obeyed, that persons did not actually stop, but at all events it was reasonable ground for exercising due care when approaching a railway crossing. The fact, however, that a person did not obey that rule was not conclusive evidence of negligence. After reading some observations on negligence by the late Sir John Salmond, his Honour said had Rutherford stopped his vehicle he could have heard the train whistle, and could have heard the noise of the train approaching. He thought the jury would agree that a reasonable man, before going on to a level crossing, would look carefully to see whether a train was approaching, and that if he did not do so, he was negligent. That was the broad point.