1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244 
Accident to Passenger Must be Reported
Page 77
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
E Queen's Bench Division held, last week, that where a bus passenger alighting from a moving bus before it reached a bus stop, fell and v.as injured, an accident had occurred within the meaning of Section 22 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930.
The court allowed an appeal by the police superintendent of Oxford from the dismissal by Oxford magistrates of • a summons against a bus driver, Harry Dennis Phipps, Bassett Road, Barton, for failing to report an accident
wlehin 24 hours. Section 22 applies re "owing to the presence of a motor vehicle on a road, an accident occurs whereby damage or injury is caused to any person, vehicle or animal."
The accident to a passenger was reported to the police after 24 hours. The magistrates held that it was not an accident within the meaning of the Act.
Mr. F. Whitworth, for the police, said the magistrates' construction of the Act was that an accident involved collision between vehicles or between a vehicle and a person or animal. The material words in the Act were "owing to the presence of a motor vehicle." Asked by Lord Goddard what was the object of taking these proceedings, Mr. Whitworth said it was a matter of principle, because drivers contended that the Act did not require them to report such accidents.
Mr. Nicholas, for Phipps, submitted that some limitation must be put on the words in the Act, otherwise there would be absurd results.
Giving judgment, Lord Goddard said he could understand the magistrates' decision, and would agree with it if he felt it possible to do so.
Driver Not to Blame " In this case, the accident occurred through the passenger getting off the bus while it was in motion. Although there is no suggestion that the bus driver was in any way to blame, it is impossible for the court to say that the accident did not happen owing to the presence of a motor vehicle on the road."
Lord Goddard thought that the case must go back to the magistrates with an intimation that the offence was proved. "Perhaps the magistrates will see their way to give an absolute discharge in a case like this," he added.