Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

REPORTING ACCIDENTS

CASE AT ONEHUNGA QUESTION OF LIABILITY The question as to which party is responsible for failing to report a motor accident cropped up at the Onehunga Police Court this morning, when Reginald C. Johnsen was charged with this offence. The evidence showed that after turning out of Queen Street, Onehunga, and ! approaching the Mangere Bridge after j dark, he stopped his motor-lorry a few 1 streets from the corner to give a friend ; a lift. - J Immediately after he stopped James ] C. Morgan, on a motor-cycle, ran into i the standing truck. Mrs. Morgan, wfto was pillion riding behind her husband, was thrown off, and Morgan stated that he was injured in the groin and one leg and pinned underneath his bicycle. Mr. M. Rogers, for defendant, contended that as the lorry was stationary, his client was not responsible. Johnsen said that after the accident he had asked Morgan what he was going to do about it, and the latter had agreed that it -wasn’t worth while saying anything to the police. After the smash he heard the woman shout out, “Pick up the bottle of benzine!” “But,” said Johnsen, “it wasn’t benzine that had been spilled; it was a dark liquid.” Albert Phillips, who saw the accident, deposed that both Morgan and his wife said they were all right and were not hurt. The magistrate, Mr. F. 11. Levien, eliminated the question of an accident, and confined the evidence to the statute which cast a duty upon the people involved in any accident to report it to the police. He ruled that Morgan and Johnsen should have reported the accident. He held that whether the vehicle was stationary or not, if anyone were injured, it was his duty to report. “Morgan apparently did not know who was to blame,” said the magistrate, “and it has been suggested that he was speeding, which would exonerate Johnsen, Both parties have taken up the attitude that it would be best to say nothing about it.”

He gave Johnson the benefit of the doubt by dismissing the case.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/SUNAK19290520.2.94

Bibliographic details

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 667, 20 May 1929, Page 11

Word Count
347

REPORTING ACCIDENTS Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 667, 20 May 1929, Page 11

REPORTING ACCIDENTS Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 667, 20 May 1929, Page 11

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert