PEDESTRIAN INJURED

Taranaki Daily News, 16 April 1935, Page 11

PEDESTRIAN INJURED

CHARGES AGAINST DRIVER THE ACCIDENT NOT REPORTED. NEGLIGENCE PROVED BY POLICE. Charged with driving negligently, failing to keep as far as practicable to the left and failing to report an accident that occurred to Mrs. Mona Matthews, a pedestrian, on the Main South Road near the Patua dairy factory on January 25, Miss Francis Knapton, a motorist of Pihama, appeared before Mr. W. H. Woodward, S.M., in the New Plymouth Police Court yesterday and was fined £3 on the first charge and convicted and discharged on the charge of failing to report the accident. The charge of failing to keep to the left was withdrawn by the police. She was ordered to pay costs amounting to £4. Miss Knapton, who was represented by Mr. R. J. Brokenshire, pleaded not guilty when the case was commenced on March 25. Sergeant Ciist conducted the case for the police. Mrs. Mona Matthews, Tataraimaka, said on Friday afternoon she was returning home after visiting a neighbour, and as she crossed the road to her home she was knocked down by a motor-car. The car was 50 yards away, rounding a corner, when she first saw it approaching. She walked quickly diagonally across the road. She could not estimate the speed of the car but would not say it was travelling exceptionally fast. She heard the car’s horn sound several times. She was on the bitumen about two feet from the grass when the collision occurred. The car threw her 15 or 16 feet. She was immediately in front of the car with her legs slightly under it when the car came to a standstill. There was ample room for the car to have passed behind her. She received abrasions down the left arm, left knee and left ankle. Her thigh was badly bruised. She had not told the passengers of the car that she was unhurt.

To Mr. Brokenshire Mrs. Matthews said her back was half turned towards the car and she saw it just as she stepped on to the gravel. . She thought c she had walked more than 25 feet from the time she first saw the car until the time she was struck. When she heard the horn she did not turn as she thought the driver had ample room to pass behind her. She did not understand why the horn sounded. Her injuries were such that she could not sit up for three days and she remained in bed for four days. Her husband reported the accident to the police the same day. To the magistrate Mrs. Matthews said she did not cross the road, after hearing the horn, with a certain amount of defiance* HUSBAND’S EVIDENCE. Richard N. O. Matthews, motor mechanic, Tataraimaka, said he did not see the accident, but was on the scene soon afterwards. When he arrived hjs wife was half sitting up, and when he lifted her she could not stand without assistance. It was obvious that she was injured. The driver of the car, a woman, and the passenger had not in his presence been advised that his wife was uninjured. He painted the skid marks the same day. Had he not taken the number of the car he would have had* no way of tracing Miss Knapton. He did not ask her her name. To Mr. Brokenshire he said it appeared the driver had attempted to dodge his wife. Mr. Brokenshire submitted there was no case to be answered. The only person who saw the car was Mrs. Matthews, who admitted hearing the horn. There was no suggestion of excessive speed. Her only complaint was that the car “chased” her across the road and knocked her down. The only inference to be drawn was that the car had gone on the wrong side of the road to dodge her. The only explanation was that the woman dashed in front of the car and that the driver attempted to pull up. Mrs. Matthews was the author of her own wrong and had no grounds for complaint. As far as the second charge was concerned the motorist was entitled to go to the wrong side in an attempt to avoid striking a person. As far as the third charge was concerned the woman admitted she was uninjured, so the defendant was under no obligation to report the accident. The magistrate held there was a case to answer, as apart from what might be assumed evidence was all against the woman having rushed across the road. She had- heard the horn at least three times, and this would, take no little time. DRIVER’S STORY. Miss Knapton said her father was the only passenger in the car. Mrs. Matthew's was standing on the side of the road and she did not expect her to cross over the road as there was no house and only grass and rough fem on the other side of the road. When she approached Mrs. Matthews stepped out and Miss Knapton swerved to die right in an endeavour to miss her. She was positive that the car did not touch the pedestrian. The right wheel of the car was on the edge of the grass. When her father went to pick up Mrs. Matthews she said she was all right and could get up herself. Her husband came along and after assuring her father that Mrs. Matthews was all right the pair went home on the understanding that Matthews would communicate with her if all was not well. Miss Knapton did not leave the car. She had been driving for 17 or 18 years and had not been before the court before.

To Sergeant Clist Miss Knapton said she denied that the previous witnesses were telling the truth. She had not reported the accident to the police. She was not perturbed by the accident. Mrs. Matthews had walked away with her husband with her arm on her husband’s shoulder. There was no sign of blood or abrasions.

To the magistrate Miss Knapton said Mrs. Matthews crossed the road at a moderate pace. The car was about seven yards away from her when she started to walk across the road. FELL IN FRONT OF CAR. Teddy Knapton, farmer of Manaia, said he first saw Mrs. Matthews as they came round the corner, and she commenced to walk across the road as the car drew near her. The car did not hit her; she just fell, down in front of it. It was impossible for the driver to have done anything else under the circumstances. There was insufficient room to pass behind Mrs. Matthews. Matthews had accused the motorists of being on the wrong side of the road and witness told him it was unavoidable. Witness said he was given to understand that the woman was unhurt. There were no skid marks on the road. To Sergeant Clist Knap ton said Matthews and his wife had not told the truth. Mrs. Matthews received no visible injuries. Had she been hurt they would not have left her. She sat down with her hands on the bumper, presumably from fright. In connection with the charge of negligent driving the crucial question was whether Mrs. Matthews was already embarked on her diagonal course across the road when the vehicle came in sight of her, said Mr. Woodward, or whether, as the defendant claimed, Mrs. Matthews was then stationary and em-

barked on her course when the defendant was so near her as to be unable to avoid her, or so near to excuse defendant for going to the right to avoid her. It was submitted by both parties, that Mrs. Matthews did not look up after seeing the car round the corner. It was also clear that the horn was blown several times, and that seemed to show that if the defendant’s story was true Mrs. Matthews must have stepped on to the road after hearing the horn. It did not seem probable that she would do that. In support of that was her evidence and the distance from the spot where she first came on the road to the position where she fell—a distance of 30 feet. That was also inconsistent with the evidence of Miss Knapton that Mrs. Matthews stepped on to the road in such a manner as to precipitate the accident. How did she cross the 30 feet if the car was only seven yards away? Mrs. Matthews did what pedestrians often do. Being confident that the driver of the car had seen ; her by reason of the sounding of the horn, she took no further interest in the car but proceeded on her course, leaving the responsibility cf avoiding her to the driver. It appeared that Miss Knapton relied, on the sounding of the horn to stop Mrs. Matthews and give her sufficient room to pass in front of her. She did not know defendant, who might have been stone deaf. It was decidedly negligence to continue on persistently. He would not say that it was'a'case of wilful running down, but it ■ was. a case of negligence and he would have to convict, said the magistrate.. .

The police agreed to withdraw the charge relating to failure to keep to the left, and the magistrate, referring to the failure to report the accident, said he was not interested whether it was the fall or the act of being knocked that actually caused the injuries. The fact was that Mrs. Matthews suffered injury.

due to the way the car was driven. It was possible that the defendant had been under the impression that Mrs. Matthew’s was not hurt. However, she was, and Miss Knapton would be convicted and discharged.