TRAMCAR FATALITY.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 10886, 29 September 1913, Page 3

TRAMCAR FATALITY.

AN AUCKLAND INQUEST. SHOULD JACKS BE CARRIED ON CARS? (Per Press Association.] AUCKLAND, September 26. The adjourned inquest concerning the tleath of the little child Dorothy Griffin, aged, three years and seven months, who was knocked down by and pinned under a car in Dominion Road on September 18, was resumed before Mr E. C. Cutten, S.M., to-day. Mr J. R. Reed, K.C., watched the proceedings 6n behalf of the Tramway Company and the inotorman# and Mr Hall Skelton appeared for the relations of the child. Percy Miller, motorman, said he saw the child on the road near the watertable, but when he noticed that she was Hearing the track ho applied the emergency brake. She was bit by tho edgo of the buffer and thrown round under the back of the bogey. The car was going at from twelve to fifteen miles an hour, and he pulled up as promptly as possible. Mr Skelton: Had there been a protection along the sides of the car, would not the child have been saved from going underneath? I didn't see how the child got under, and it i 6 very seldom that anything does ' get under from the side. Mr Cutten: Instead of the child beiug,knocked clear, she appears to have . been spun round and swung under the car?. i Witness stated that he had not known of any similar accident previously, i Mr R-eed stated that thero were screw-jack stations at various points, and he would call expert evidence to show that it was not customary to carry jacks on electric cars. James H. Bronnand, superintendent of rolling stock to the Auckland Tramway Company, stated that ho was conversant with tramway services in America, New South Wales and New Zealand, and in no instance were jacks carjried on electric cars. It was the same , with up-to-date systems in England. Jacks were primarily used for lifting derailed locomotives; and were not required . with electric, power, also invarifibly jn case of accident the public took control, and were liable to do injury to themselves and bystanders through mishandling jacks. The public generally were not skilled in the use of jacks, and motormen were disabled through shock. In addition, persons who had to be released by lifting cars were probably beyond.® aid. Jacking was a skilled occu.pation. It waa solely a question of safety, and not of expense. Side protections on cars were not practicable. ; Mr Skelton: Do yon seriously advance , these, two reasons as valid why jacks should not be carried for the preservation of life P Yes, and I do so from fifteen to twenty years' experience, i Is it a satisfactory reason to say that • the public would take charge and do further damage? • • j Yes, a very satisfactory reason. Wpuld it not be an advantage from a , life-saving point of view to carry jacks? There would be no life-saving. You do not think it a necessity to carry jacks P • No., ■ Or that the company was negligent in failing to provide jacks? I do not. Witness, continuing, said that side protections were placed on four-wheel cars," but could not he used on eightwheel cars such as those in Auckland. They must have free space for running. Mr Skelton: But something there jvould be better than nothing? It must be strong and permanent to . he effective. I Protection could be carried down to | "within six inches of the ground? . . i Yes; but it would be or little use. I The Coroner returned a verdict to [the effect that death was- caused by ! shock due to injuries through being accidentally struck by a tramcar. Mr Cutten added that some evidence had jbeein given as to the advisability of carrying jacks in tramcars to obviate delay in case of accidents. In the pre;sent instance, the delay that occurred had not influenced the death of the child. The objection to carrying jacks jWas',not. aOT>arent to the lay mind, and ion the,evidence he wga not in a posijtioii .to express an opinion. >