DUTIES OF MOTORISTS

Taranaki Daily News, 7 August 1930, Page 9

DUTIES OF MOTORISTS

DRIVERS AND NEGLIGENCE. THE CONTRIBUTORY PLEA. A discussion on the subject of alleged contributory negligence took place in the Supreme Court at Wellington last week in the course of the trial of Alfred Edward Storey, charged with negligently driving a motor-car on the Ngahauranga Gorge road last April and causing the deaths of Mr. and Mis. Cook. Questions by the accused's counsel, Mr. 11. H. Cornish, based upon suggestions of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, were not allowed by the Chief Justice, Sir Michael Myers. His Honor ruled that the question of contributory negligence by deceased did not enter into the consideration of tiff? ease. He said he would direct the jury as a matter of law that only two questions were entitled to consideration. The first was whether the accused was negligent, and the second, if the accused was negligent, would the accident have happened but for that negligence ? Mr. Cornish said he found himself to some little extent embarrassed by the observation. His Honor said that if the occasion arose, he would see that counsel was not .prejudiced. Counsel submitted that what happened after the accident was of great importance. His Honor: I shall tell the jury that it doesn’t matter one bit. Mr. Cornish asked a witness the question: You did not regard the tragedy that ensued as the natural or probable conclusion of the collision?

His Honor would not allow the question, but at counsel’s request, in view of the possibility of the question of contributory negligence being raised in another Court, His Honor agreed to make a note, of it.

After counsel had put another question, His Honor said he would repeat that both under the Crimes Act and the Motor Vehicles Act, if a person by his negligence caused an accident which resulted in the death of a person, and if that accident and consequent death were due to that negligence, then the person should be convicted. Accidents of this nature were so frequent that the law must be settled once and for all. If the law were found to be different to the ruling he had given, then it was for Parliament to say whether or not it should be altered, and he was going to direct the jury in that way. His Honor eaid he would be very definite. His ruling was that the question of contributory negligence did not enter into the consideration of the case. Mr. Cornish made a reference to the opinions of other Judges.

His Honor: I do not care what other Judges have ruled and I am determined that the law must be settled one way or the other. If I am wrong no harm is done to anybody. If it is necessary to reserve the question, you know I shall place it in the clearest possible direction.

life. Honor asked his associate to make the following note: —“Mr. Cornish at this stage asked a question based upon a suggestion of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, which question I disallowed.” ‘‘We have got to consider the safety t qf human lives,” said His Honor, c Counsel said he agreed and that asr a

motorist himself he was just as concerned as anyone that the roads should be safe. Nothing that followed the impact of the two cars in the accident, ruled His Honor, had any bearing on the case unless there was some entirely new factor that the accused had nothing whatever to do with. His Honor repeated that he could appreciate counsel’s difficulty, but he was not endeavouring to place any difficulty in his way. His Honor said he was simply doing what he considered his obvious duty.