MOTORIST FOUND NOT GUILTY

Southland Times, Issue 23646, 22 October 1938, Page 3

MOTORIST FOUND NOT GUILTY

NEGLIGENCE CHARGE FAILS CYCLIST STRUCK WHILE DRIVER DAZZLED (United Press Association) CHRISTCHURCH, October 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 today 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 filo arPllcpH Vince, said Mr Brown, was approaching Riccarton along a stretch of straight road near Yaldhurst. 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 that subsequently he was dazzled and did not see the cyclist 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 100 yards after striking the cyclist, but gave a reasonable explanation that the injured man had been thrown 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 there was no suggestion that Milliken had taken liquor, that he was driving too fast or 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 tire weakness of the headlights on the car. The facts were not in dispute, said his Honour. 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 Honour, “of cyclists, pedestrians or others? Are they to be run over, injured or 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, 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 Honour added, to establish the standard of care required of motorists. The jury returned with a verdict of not guilty.