WHO DROVE VEHICLE?

Taranaki Daily News, 1 November 1935, Page 4

WHO DROVE VEHICLE?

POLICE COURT ARGUMENT WHEN IS DRIVER NOT A DRIVER? APPLYING MOTOR REGULATIONS. TRAFFIC INSPECTOR’S POSITION. When is a driver not a driver? was the question that was put to the magistrate, Mr. W. H. Woodward, at the New Plymouth Police Court yesterday by counsel, Mr. R. J. Brokenshire, in a motor accident case that had peculiar features. Two charges were brought against the man, G. O. McCutcheon (Hastings), behind the wheel of a truck the brakes of which were under observation by an inspector standing on the running board. Under instructions from the inspector the driver applied his brakes and stopped suddenly, causing a cyclist behind to crash into the back of the vehicle. The charges which he faced were of allowing the inspector to ride on the running board and of failing to report the accident. The defence led counsel into interesting interpretations of the motor regulations. Briefly his contention was that the inspector on the running board was the driver and not the man behind the wheel. The magistrate did not agree with him, but nevertheless, after an absorbing argument, both charges were dismissed. . , After evidence had been given on the facts of the accident Mr. Brokenshire, who did not call evidence for the defence, explained with the aid of a copy of the raptor vehicle regulations that the traffic officer was authorised to see that the Act and regulations were observed and that Inspector Collings was entitled to stand on the running board to see that the brakes were in proper order. McCutcheon was under Collings’ Ah'® o " tion and accordingly it was submitted that McCutcheon was not the recognised driver of the vehicle. As far as the charge of allowing Collings to ride on the running board was concerned, he submitted the regulation did not apply to a traffic inspector carrying out a regulation test. In any case McCutcheon had no option—if he did not allow the inspector to ride on the running board he would be committing an offence. A further regulation made it an offence not to comply with directions given by an inspector. QUESTION OF “ALLOWING.” “If McCutcheon had ordered Collings off his running board,” continued counsel, “he would have been guilty of the offence of obstructing the inspector in th- execution of his duty. He could not be guilty of ‘allowing’ the inspector to on the running board because he had no option in the matter to allow it or disallow it.” The “driver” of the vehicle at the tune of the accident was the inspector and not McCutcheon, submitted Mr. Brokenshire. It was true McCutcheon was performing the mechanical actions, but the actual mind controlling his actions was the mind of the inspector. The exercise of judgment and control were essential ingredients in driving and McCutcheon 1 had no opportunity of exercising his own independent judgment, having to obey the orders of the inspector. The term ‘driver’ was not defined in the regulations but was in Webster’s dictionary as “one under control.” Mr. Brokenshire invited the magistrate to dismiss the charges under his discretionary power and suggested the police might have prosecuted the inspector for aiding and abetting the alleged offence. “I agree that Collings was perfectly entitled to order McCutcheon to take him on the running board, arid McCutcheon was bound to do it,” commented Mr. Woodward in giving his decision. “The word ‘allow’ connotes an option on McCutcheon’s part, and he had none. In any case the inspector was on the running board to detect a defect. “As regards the charge of failing to report the accident,” he concluded, “it appears to me there was an offence and I think McCutcheon was the driver, not Collings. The regulations say the driver is to obey the traffic officer’s instructions, but if the traffic officer is to be regarded as the driver; who .as the traffic officer whose instructions are to be obeyed? McCutcheon was willing to report the accident and by not doing so he relied on the inspector’s knowledge. The charge is proved but will be dismissed as trivial.”