SCHOOL BUS NOT SUITABLE

Southland Times, Issue 23682, 3 December 1938, Page 21

SCHOOL BUS NOT SUITABLE

CORONER’S COMMENT AT INQUEST

FATAL • FALL BY CHILD

(United Press Association)

BLENHEIM, December 2. Returning a verdict at the inquest that John William Barr, aged seven years, died as the result of head injuries received in a fall from a moving school bus near Seddon on November 21, the Coroner (Mr E. J. Hill) added a rider condemning the fatal vehicle as unsuitable for the purpose of the conveyance of young children. The Coroner added that he could not see that the driver of the bus was blameworthy. If there was blame it was on the method of transport of children and there was much need of improvement. He undertook to forward the recommendation to the Transport Department that vehicles of such a type should not be licensed for the purpose for which this bus was used. . . , , The evidence disclosed that the bus was a light delivery van with a canvas hood but open at the back except for a 17|-inch tailboard. Alexander Carlyle Reilly, the driver, a son of the contractor, J. Anderson Reilly, of Seddon, said the bus was occupied by ten children between the ages of five and 13 years. There were no adults with them and he was seated in the cab entirely separated from the children, who could communicate with him only by tapping on the cab window, which was a fixture. If he needed to communicate with them he had to stop and get out. On the occasion of the accident he inadvertently drove past the deceased’s gate. On pulling up 40 yards beyond he went to tell the children to sit still while he backed to the gate, but’found that Barr had jumped out. The vehicle was licensed by the Transport Department on October 6.

A school girl aged 12 years, gave evidence that when the bus did not stop at Barr’s gate he threw something out, then put his foot on the tailboard and jumped out. Nobody suggested that he should do it. He was not pushed. The bus was travelling at an ordinary speed. The Coroner added a rider to the verdict, drawing the attention of the responsible department to the fact that in his opinion the vehicle involved, although licensed, was quite unsuited for the conveyance of young children; also that the absence of control by the driver and the open back guarded only by a low tailboard should disqualify such a vehicle fAm receiving a certificate of fitness for the puropse for which it was used. He submitted that the matter was one meriting immediate attention by revision of the system or regulation which permitted such vehicles to be employed not only at Seddon, but in other districts in New Zealand.