ECHO OF COLLISION

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 77, Issue 263, 6 November 1934, Page 7

ECHO OF COLLISION

MOTORIST ON TRIAL CHARGE OF NEGLIGENCE. MISHAP AT CUTFIELD’S UOBNEK. Arising out of a collision between a motor-car and motor-cycle at Outfield’s corner, near Westmere, on the night ot June 17 last, Alfred Leslie Brown, a farmer, of Kai Iwi, was charged at the Wanganui Supreme Court yesterday with negligently driving a motor-car and causing bodily harm to George William Loveridge. The Crown’s case concluded at 4.30 p.m., and counsel for the defence completed his opening address to the jury and will call evidence when the Court resumes this morning. His Honour, Mr. Justice Smith, presided. Mr. N. R. Bain, Crown Prosecutor, conducted the case for the Crown, and Brown was represented by Mr. A. D. Brodie. The jury comprised Alfred Edward Wellard (foreman), William Agnew, Walter Butler, Bert Edwards, Alfred Anderson, Thomas Quirk, Hugh Cameron, Harold Watson, Wilfred P. Dickson, Walter Golding Hickman, William Raisey, Howard William Piper. Mr. Bain, outlining the case, said that, happily, the happenings on which the charge was based were short and

simple. The accused left Wanganui in his own car, in which he had his sister and a Mr. Emmett. Near a bend where there was a side road leading to Kai Iwi beach, the car came into collision with a motor-cycle ridden by Loveridge, who was still an inmate of the Public Hospital. The width of the road was described by Mr. Bain. The night, he said, was very dark, but fine, and the evidence was to the effect that before the accident c | urred accused was driving the car at 35 miles an hour and had slackened to 30 miles an hour just before the bond. The passenger Emmett called, “Look out!” and accused swerved to his right and the collision occurred. The motor-cycle had been driven from Brunswick and all 'the way had been kept on its correct side of the road. Happily, the point of collision was clear. It was on the motorist’s right side of the road. After the collision took place, the car carried the cycle along in front of it 30 feet, ami it was thrown a further 34 feet and came to rest on the cyclist’s correct side, 64 feet from where the collision occurred. The car finished up 100 feet from the point of collision on its right-hand side. Motor Engineer’s Evidence. Oswald Allen, motor engineer, described the scene of the accident, which he visited the day following the accident in company with Detective Walsh and Constable Christmas. The accused assisted witness to take measurements. Witness presented a plan indicating the positions of the damaged vehicles, the score marks on the bitumen, and other features. Witness also produced photographs of the scene, showing score marks indicated on the bitumen by chalk, and showing the front of the damaged car. The chalk marks of wheel tracks on the bitumen were imaginary and connected up with the tracks on the grass, where they were clearly defined. The brakes and brake lining of the car were in good order. Both lamps showed a good bright light. In the opinion of witness the impact took place under the left light of the car. which had no bumper. The front wheel of the cycle was completely wrecked, and the handle bars broken. There was no headlamp bulb or bulb socket on the cycle. Cross-examined by Mr. Brodie, witness said he was an experienced driver and was familiar with the bend in question. Brown had been quite frank in telling what he knew about the matter, and from what he told witness, witness was able to give evidence regarding the point of impact, etc. Brown had said that there was a car in front of him. and he had followed it, going at about the same speed. He said that there wore no lights visible either on the main or the side road. Mr. Brodie;. Did he not tell you that he took this bend on his correct side? Witness: He said he was on his correct side and showed us where he drove. Mr. Brodie: And when he was halfway round he said he saw what he took to be a cycle going in the same direction as he was? —Yes. lie said that when he first saw it he swerved to his right to pass it by overtaking it. After he swerved, he then saw the cycle was not going in the same direction but coming towards him. Mr. Brodie: And the impact took place before he had time to act? Yes. Mr. Brodie: If they wore both travelling at 20 miles an hour the impact would occur in less than a second, wouldn’t it?—Yes, it would. Further cross-examined, witness said that the lights of the car when taking the bend would be thrown to the left. The motor-cycle wa. a drab khaki colour. Its reflector would be the only thing that would reflect the light oi the car. The Swerve to the Right Mr Brodie: 1 put it to you its a motorist—picluie Brown coming round that bend and seeing what he took to be a cycle going in the same direction as he was—that his proper course was to swerve to his right to pass it? -Yes. Mr Brodie: And if it was a cycle coming towards him and it swerved to its left at the same time as the car swung to'its right, there would be no chance of avoiding a collision, wouh there? It would be over in a second, wouldn’t it? —Yes. ' Witness said that all the damage on the car and cycle was consistent with Brown’s statement that he swerved to his right and the cycle to its left, and that the collision occurred when the vehicles were at an angle. Mr Brodie: -Now 1 put it U you as a motorist, that if the vehicles were at that angle when they struck, hair a chain back both vehicles were on Brown’s correct side ot the road. It would seem so if there was that one swerve, a steady veering. Mr Brodie: And it after swerving, Brown saw that instead oi a cycle going in the same direction as he was, but one coming towards him, that would create a sudden emergency J Y es. . Mr Brodie: An emergency created by a cycle being on its wrong side without a light? His Honour: How are you putting that question to the witness? You are not asking him to state, as a tact, that the cycle was on its wrong side of the road without a light, are youj

Mr Brodie: I am putting it to him as ' a motorist, that if a cycle was ap- j proaching on its wrong side without a | light, it created an emergency for; Brown to cope with. Further cross-examined, witness said Loveridge was a big man and Miss Thurston the pillion rider, would have difficulty in seeing whether the beam of the torch she held shone on the road. If a car had passed them just before its lights would temporarily affect her vision and the same would apply to Loveridge. His vision would be made all the more difficult if the torch was j showing a dull red light. It was quite , possible for Loveridge to have got off the road after passing the other car. Questioned about the torch, witness .said that a test made tire next day of the strength of the batteries would not be reliable. Tendency of Traffic Re-examined by Mr Bain, witness | said that an account of the super-ele-vation of the road at Cutfield’s corner (the bend in question)* the tendency would be for a cyclist to keep to his correct side coming from New Plymouth. If a ear was travellii g from Wanganui, a cyclist approaching from, the New ’ Plymouth side would have warning of the car’s approach by reason of the lights shining on the trees. Mr Bain; If the motorist cut. the corner and the cyclist was on his correct side of the road, two feet from the centre line of the bitumen, would the damage to the vehicles be consistent with that? Witness: No. In that case I lie damage to the guard would have been the other way. Dr. A. D. Nelson, medical superintendent at the Wanganui Hospital,, gave evidence as to Loveridge >s injuries. Witness did not know when Loveridge would be discharged. James Murray produced a plan of the locality and was examined regarding super-elevation. To Mr Brodie: There is nothing abnormal about this bend, is there?—No. Stella Thurston, who was a pillion rider on the cycle,, said that the torch was burning brightly when they walked from her people ’.s house at. Brunswick to the cycle. She held the torch under Mr Loveridge's right arm and its beam shone on the road. The cycle was on its correct side and nearer to the edge than the centre of the road. She remembered two cars coming towards the cycle when it was approaching the bend in question. The first car passed and the other seemed to , come towards them from their right. The cycle was still on its correct side. , Up to the time of passing the car they . had had no difficulty about seeing the . road with the torch. Loveridge had travelled at a moderate speed. He had ■ kept to his correct side all the way. Questions About the Torch Witness was cross-examined by Mr ' Brodie, and stated that, all the way, ’ the cycle was on its correct side and the light of the torch was shining. Mr Brodie: Even when you passed the other car (the one in front of ’ Brown’s). Witness; Once the car had passed 1 don’t remember seeing the light. Mr Brodie: You would sec the lights of the first car for quite a distance? | Did you sec them over Mr Loveridge’s shoulder? —Yes. Mr Brodie: Surely it would be over his left shoulder if you were on your correct (left) side of the road. Witness: It was over his right shoulder. The car was coming round the bend. Under further cross-examination, witness said that sho did not know how far the motor-cycle was from the left-hand side of the road. Sh-e had kept looking to the right. She knew one of the occupants of Brown’s car had said he saw a dull red glow. She did not know where a dull red glow I would come from except from the - torch- Theve was no other light. ■ " Mr Brodie: Did you have your hand on the switch?—Witness was not sure ' just where she held the torch. The ' torch was burning up to the time of the accident, as far as she knew. She could not swear to it after they passed the first car. Mervyn James Emmett, a passenger I in Brown’s car, detailed the facts leading up to the collision. Brown L had travelled on hi.s correct side of the road. He took the curve on his cor- : rect side. Before the car had got properly on to the straight again witness noticed directly in front of the car, a dim light, resembling that of a dying ' torch. It was within a chain. The next moment the lights of the car I showed it to be a motor-cycle. At that moment witness called, “Look out,” 1 and the car swerved sharply to the right. The next instant there was a crash. Just prior to the crash the motor-cyclist turned to his left, with ' the result that the two vehicles met at ’ an angle. Witness picked the torch up after the accident. It would not function. Cross-examined, witness said that il ■ the cycle had been properly lighted . there would have been no difficulty in avoiding it, or of telling whether it was coming towards the car or going away from it. They would see a proper light for hundreds of yards. ' His Honour: How clear are you on speeds?—l am a driver myself and 1 ’ have my knowledge of Mr Brown’s ' ability as a driver. Mr Brodie: You might even be under-stating the speed? —Yes. It is only a matter of judgment. Mr Brodie: Did you consider that the speed Mr Brown travelled at that ’ evening w r as safe and reasonable? Yes. ' Mr Brodie: Have you any doubt that Brown took the corner on his proper side of the road? —No doubt at all.

1 Mr Brodie: From the moment that i you saw that dull red glow the rest | happened in iess time than it takes to ; tell.'—Yes it was all over in that i . ’ time. Witness said he did not -see any beam. All he saw was a dull red glow. He could not conceive the accident happening if the cycle had had a light. His Honour; What would you have done if a black cow had walked over the road at that bend? Would th-ere have been an accident? Witness: There may have been, Your | Honour. , Mr Brodie; It wouldn’t have been coming at you at 20 miles an hour. Witness: There would be more chance of avoiding a stationary object than a moving one. Mr Brodie: Once Brown had swerved to the right there was nothing he could do to avoid an accident?—Nothing at all. Witness did not know whether Brown had applied the brakes or not. Police Evidence Constable Christmas gave evidence as to statements made by the accused on the night of the accident. The torch handed to witness that night he tried and found to be not working. It had a severe dent ou the switch. Accused had said that when he first saw the cycle he thought it was a pushcycle going the same way as he was and on its right-hand side of the road. Cross-examined, witness said that he now knew that what Brown meant was that he thought the cycle was going in the same direction as Lire car, as it was on the same side of the road as he was. Mr Brodie: I put it to you, as a motorist, and in all fairness, that if Brown was correct in that first judgment, he took the proper course in swerving to the right? Witness: To pass a cycle going in the same direction he would have to swerve to the right. Detective J. Walsh gave evidence as to tests made by a competent electrician on the torch. The cells were found to be in working order and threw a good light. That closed the case for the Crown. The Defence Opened. Ju bis opening address to the jury, Air, JJrodie said that he could come to I he crux of the defence in a sentence — that Brown, driving as a normal and reasonable driver would, had kept to hi.s proper side of the road and, when coming round the bend, was faced with a sudden emergency brought about by the negligence of the cyclist. The Crown’s own witnesses had supplied a complete answer to the charge. They were not surprised, from the position of the cycle on the road and the state of its lighting, that Brown supposed it to be a cycle going in the same direction as he was. Had there been a proper light on the cycle there would have been no accident. Brown had the right to expect, when he was travelling home that night, that all users of the road would obey the law and carry regulation lights which would disclose their positions a long way off. Brown was put in a position of instant peril, a sudden emergency, through no fault of his own. Brown’s swerving to the •right could not be imputed to him as negligence. It was the proper thing to do to avoid what he supposed was a cyclist travelling in the same direction. Counsel quite agreed with the Crown that if there was contributary negligence on both sides that the negligence of Loveridge was no defence, but the Crown’s submission did not go far enough. If Brown, up to the time of swerving, was conducting himself as a reasonable motorist should and the negligence of the cyclist placed him in such a position of peril that he had to swerve to the right, then, equally, the Crown ease must fail. The Crown had to prove some negligence on Brown’s part. It was the kernel of the defence that it was entirely because of the cycle “tricking,” or luring Brown into the supposition that it was a vehicle going away from him that caused him to do what was the proper thing. What, he did was not negligence. The Court adjourned until 10 a.m. to-day.