JUMPED FROM BUS

Timaru Herald, Volume CXLV, Issue 21210, 3 December 1938, Page 4

JUMPED FROM BUS

SCHOOLBOYS DEATH By Telegraph —Press Association BLENHEIM, December 2. Returning a verdict at the inquest that John William Barr, aged seven, died as a result of head injuries received in a fall from a moving school-bus near Seddon, on November 21, the Coroner. Mr E. J. Hill, added a rider, condemning the fatal vehicle as being unsuitable for the purpose of the conveyance of young children. The Coroner added that he could not see that the driver of the bus was blameworthy. If there was blame, it was on the method of transport of the children, and there was much need for improvement. He undertook to forward a recommendation to the Transport Department that vehicles of such a type should not be licensed for the purpose for which this bus was used.

The evidence disclosed that the bus was a light delivery van, with a canvas hood, but open at the back, except for a 17 i inch tailboard.

Alexander Carlyle Reilly, the driver, and son of the contractor, Mr J. Anderson Reilly, Seddon, said the bus was occupied by 10 children, between the ages of five and 13. There was no adult with them, and he was seated in the cab, entirely separated from the children, who could communicate with him only by tapping on the cab window, which was a fixture. If he needed to communicate with them, he had to stop and get out. On the occasion of the accident, he inadvertently drove past the dead boy’s gate. On pulling up, 40 yards beyond, he went to tell the children to sit still while he backed to the gate, but he found that Barr had jumped out. The vehicle had been licensed by the Transport Department on October 6.

A schoolgirl, aged 12, gave evidence that when the bus did not stop at Barr's gate, he threw something out, then put a foot on the tailboard, and jumped out. Nobody had suggested that he do it, and he had not been pushed. The bus was travelling at the ordinary speed. The Coroner added a rider to the verdict, drawing the attention of the responsibility of the Department to the fact that, in his opinion, the vehicle involved, although licensed, was quite unsuited to the conveyance of young children; and that the absence of control by the driver, and the open back, guarded only by a low tailboard, should disqualify such a vehicle from receiving a certificate of fitness for the purpose for which it was used. He submitted that the matter was one meriting immediate action, by revision of the system or regulation which permitted such vehicles to be employed, not only at Seddon, but also in other districts in New Zealand.