CARELESS DRIVING
Page 56
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
by Les Oldridge, T Eng(CEI), MIMI, AMIRTE
QUITE OFTEN there are no independent witnesses to road accidents and in such cases a driver, who was driving carelessly, may consider himself fortunate and think that he will escape a prosecution for careless driving because of the lack of evidence against him. This is not necessarily the case.
There is a civil law rule of evidence known as "res ipsa loquitur" (facts can .speak for themselves). The rule provides that where an accident would not have happened in the ordinary way with proper care, this itself affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of an explanation by the defendant, that the accident arose through lack of care.
The principle of -res ipsa loquitur" has no application in a criminal ease such as driving .without due care and attention but it was held in Wright v Wenlock (1971) RTE 228 that the facts of a particular case might be such that, in the absence of some explanation, the only proper inference is that the driving was careless. In such cases, it was said, there is a case to answer and the justices ought not to dismiss the summons at the close of the prosecution's case on a submission by the defence that there was no case to answer.
In this particular accident the car left the road and collided with a telegraph pole. The prosecution proved that the car and the tyres were in good condition so there was no possibility that the car deviated from its normal path because of a mechanical defect and the driver was unable to give any explanation as to what caused the accident.
In Rablohr) v Burgar (1971) RTR 234, the defendant's car collided with a wall on a fine day when the roads were dry. Skid marks were found behind the car but the driver could offer no explanation as to why the accident happened.
The justices found there was insufficient evidence on which to convict. It was held on
appeal, however, that the facts in such a case may be So strong that the only inference is that there had been careless driving.
The year 1971 was a vintage one for cases of "res ipsa loquiturfor a further case on this subject was reported, Butty v Davey RTR. 75. Here a lorry negotiated one sharp bend but failed to do so at the next bend 130 yards further along the road.
It collided head on with another lorry travelling towards it. The driver contended that the cause of the accident was not his careless driving but the slippery state of the road, He was found not guilty but the prosecution appealed. It was held that "res ipsa loquitur'' applied but the defence explanation was not fanciful and the justices were entitled to accept it, so the appeal was dismissed.
Benson v Smith (1972) was a similar case, a car crossed a central white line and collided with a car coming in the opposite direction. The prosecution had made an examination of the car and there was no fault in its mechanism which would have caused it to swerve in the way described. The justices thought the cause could have been the momentary illness of the driver and dismissed the case. It was held on appeal that as the defence of a mechanical defect or illness was not put forward by the defence, the Justices were wrong to speculate on potential defences.
The crossing of the white line was itself evidence of careless driving in the absence of an explanation by the driver of what actually caused the vehicle to leave its correct side of the road.