SEQUEL TO ACCIDENT

Te Awamutu Courier, Volume 77, Issue 7000, 8 December 1948, Page 6

SEQUEL TO ACCIDENT

TRUCK DRIVER BEFORE COUI?!’ FINES IMPOSED ON TWO CHARGES The circumstances that surrounded an accident which occurred recently in Alexandra Street were ventilated at some length in the Te Awamutu Court yesterday when Rodney Allan Laird was charged before Mr S. L. Paterson, S.M., on charges of driving a motor tiuck without due care and attention and failing to report such accident forthwith to the nearest police station. Mr F. D. Robertshaw, of Hamilton, appeared for Laird, and Sergeant A. Bisset prosecuted. Laird pleaded not guilty. The '.young (lady (involved in the accident gave evidence as to cyclinghome to a meal on the Bth October at 6.10 p.m. and when in the vicinity of the intersection of Alexandra and Bank Streets she noticed some trucks coming along Alexandra Street. It was raining at the time and she had her umbrella up. She did not see the defendant give any signal of «his intention to turn. When half-way across Bank Street she struck the end of the truck and she was thrown on to the street. The truck was on Armstrong’s side of the intersection. The umbrella did not shield her vision at all. She was taken into a near-by shop. She did not discuss the accident with Laird beyond saying she was all right. She was attended by a doctor and had a wound stitched and she was off work for five or six weeks. The truck cut the corner. She did not see a signal given, but heard a toot of a horn but she could not say where it came from. Witness at this stage indicated on a plan her position at the time of the impact with the truck. Mr Robertshaw’s cross-examination did not elicit any new evidence.

Constable Costello read a statement he obtained from the defendant in which Laird said it was raining- at the .time and visibility was not the best. He signalled his intention to turn. He did not know that he had to report an accident until told by a superior. He had been driving for five years and it was the first accident he had been involved in. Laird said that the accident was in his opinion due to the young lady failing to keep a proper look-out. After a brief cross-examination of Constable Costello, Mr Robertshaw asked the magistrate if there was any case to answer, and Mr Paterson said there was as defendant knew that it was his duty to give way to traffic on the right. Mr Robertshaw said that in regards the first charge that when his client saw the young lady coming he thought that he had ample time to get into Bank Street. The first he knew of the accident was when he heard a crash. He did not know what part of the truck struck the . young woman. Mr Robertshaw said that the evidence of another witness was that in his opinion the umbrella caught the back of the truck, and on the facts he (Mi- Robertshaw) considered that his client was definitely entitled to be acquitted. . The magistrate said that the defendant must have known that it was his duty to give way. Sergeant Bisset internosed to say that if the defendant had taken a right turn as he should have done the accident would not have happened. Continuing his address Mr Robertshaw said that in regards the second charge a great deal depended on the interpretation of the words “report an accident forthwith to the nearest police station”, and Mr Robertshaw quoted legal authorities on the question of interpretation. The accident would have been reported but for the intervention of the week-end. The magistrate: What had the week-end to do with it. The police station was open all the time. The defendant’s evidence was to the effect that he gave a signal of his intention to turn into Bank Street. The young lady was then 20 yards away. He did not give way because he felt sure that the cyclist was too far away and that he had time to turn into Bank Street. Laird indicated his position on the plan and continuing said that when he heard the crash he was then over the pedestrian crossing about 15 yards into Bank Street. He was also sure that when the cyclist was picked up she was in the middle of the pedestrian crossing.

To Sergeant Bisset, Laird denied cutting the corner and he said that the crash happened in Bank Street. Frank Stedman Teddy, a bus driver, gave evidence as to knowing the defendant, but not intimately. He was outside the front entrance of the Commercial Hotel when the accident occurred. He saw two trucks; the first sounded its horn and stopped, while the other truck turned into Bank Street. The witness indicated the position of the truck as he saw it on the plan. To Sergeant Bisset, the witness admitted that he was not right on the spot when the accident happened.

To the magistrate, teddy said that when the cyclist was hit, the tail end of the truck was in Alexandra Street. Mr Paterson then reviewed the evidence, stating that it was the duty of drivers to give way to all traffic when taking a right hand turn, but it seemed as if the defendant thought that he had not to give way to a cyclist, but to do so. On the first charge, therefore he must be convicted. In regards the second charge Mr Paterson said that the fact that an injured person said “it’s all right” did not absolve a driver from the responsibility of reporting an accident to the police. There was always the possibility of delayed concussion. Laird must have known that it was his duty to report the accident. The police station was but a short distance away. It was not, however, a very serious breach. On the first charge the defendant was convicted and fined £2, and on the second he was convicted and fined 10s. He was ordered to pay court costs 10s on each charge. Security for appeal was fixed at £lO.