Starve.Org White Noise Usenet Archive: "Re: WEST CUMBERLAND TIMES. NOV. 21, 1928. PORTINSCALE MOTOR FATALITY."

Thanks Anne for taking the time to transcribe this inquest. What a
tragic way to go. I wonder what the verdict would have been had it
happened in modern times. Deb

On 13 Feb, 18:18, ANNNEWYORK...@aol.com wrote:

> WEST CUMBERLAND TIMES. NOV. 21, 1928.

> PORTINSCALE
> MOTOR FATALITY.
> _____
> CONFLICT OF EVIDENCE
> AS TO HEADLIGHT.
> _____

> SEATON GIRL'S DEATH.

> There was a direct conflict of evidence respecting a headlight at an inquest
> at the Keswick Police Court on Saturday - conducted by the Coroner for West
> Cumberland, Colonel D. J. MASON, D. S. O. - on the body of Margaret Ann
> WHITFIELD (18), domestic servant employed by Mr. J. H. TEMPLE, draper, Main
> Street, Keswick, belonging to Seaton, near Workington, who was run down and killed
> by a Maryport lorry at Portinscale on Thursday night.

> Mr. Lionel LIGHTFOOT, solicitor, Maryport, appeared for the driver, and Mr.
> E. TEMPLE, Kendal, for the relatives of the deceased.

> The foreman of the jury was Mr. Isaac CARTMELL.

> John Ousby WHITFIELD, 11 Jackson Street, Seaton, labourer, said that the
> girl was his daughter. She was 18 last February. He last saw her in September.
> She had good eyesight and good hearing.

> Mrs. Kate STUART, St. Herbert's School, Keswick, said that she was in Mr.
> TEMPLE's shop on Thursday about 6 p.m. and saw Miss. WHITFIELD leave the shop.
> She was in good spirits. She did not say where she was going.

> William IREDALE, Netherhall Gardens, Maryport, motor driver for Messrs.
> MANDLE, Ltd., Maryport, who was driving the lorry, said that on Thursday he left
> Maryport for Keswick with a load of goods. He left Keswick to return to
> Maryport about 6.25 p.m. He had his assistant Anthony BARLOW with him. He had two
> oil side lamps and one acetylene headlight on the offside. When passing the
> footpath leading to Howrahs and nearing Portinscale Bridge his headlight went
> out. He immediately applied his brakes and pulled into the left side of the
> road as the lorry was about to stop. He had been traveling about the middle of
> the road. He pulled up in two lorry lengths. Before he applied the brakes he
> would be traveling at about ten or twelve miles an hour. Just before he
> stopped he heard a bump in the rear of the lorry. He thought he had hit a
> kerbstone. His assistant got out first, and then he got out, and found the girl
> lying underneath the lorry just in front of the near rear wheel. The wheel was
> touching the kerbstone. The girl was pinned down by her coat, which was under
> the wheel. Her head was resting on the kerbstone and her body was lying
> crossways on the road. He tried to pull her out from under the lorry but could
> not,, and had to reverse the lorry for about a yard before he could lift her
> out. He carried her to the front of the lorry and laid her on some sacks. She
> was unconscious and breathing. She breathed for two or three minutes. He
> stopped a passing car and she was conveyed to Keswick. He found an umbrella about
> four or five feet behind the lorry on the parapet and resting against the
> fencing. It was raining hard that night and there was a strong wind, and it was
> very dark.

> The Coroner: Did you see the woman before you found her under the lorry?

> Witness: No.

> Could you see the parapet with your headlight?

> Very faintly.

> How is it you did not see the woman?

> She was not within the range of my headlight.

> What was the range of your headlight?

> About four yards.

> That is not a very good headlight?

> It was a very dark night, rainy and windy.

> If you had such a very bad headlight that it only shone about four yards and
> it was raining hard, and a strong wind was blowing and you could not see any
> further you should have been traveling at less than 10 or 12 miles per hour?

> Witness: I was traveling at a pretty careful pace.

> You were seen driving about Keswick with out a headlight?

> It was not lit until the last call at Keswick.

> Where was that?

> At Abbotts, the builder's, behind Blencathra Street.

> Have you had any trouble with this lamp before?

> Just on stormy nights, blowing out.

> Had you another headlight?

> No, sir.

> Had you ever asked for another headlight?

> Yes, I asked for one, but my employer thought that one was sufficient.

> Did you tell him you had trouble with it through it blowing out?

> Yes.

> By Mr. TEMPLE: He was delayed at Keswick, and expected to leave much earlier
> than he did, but he was not hurrying home.

> Do you think it was safe to drive twelve miles per hour, the top speed
> permissible, with such a vehicle, and with such a light?

> I was going carefully.

> Could you not have pulled up much quicker?

> If I had the lorry would have skidded across the road.

> By Mr. LIGHTFOOT: He drove about Keswick without the headlight on because it
> was not necessary to have the headlight on in Keswick.

> Mr. LIGHTFOOT: Had this girl a dark blue costume on?

> She had a dark blue coat on.

> Had she an umbrella up?

> Yes.

> The Coroner: You are leading him too much. He had said the umbrella was up
> against the fence, but he accepted your suggestion, and said she had her
> umbrella up. That was not a correct statement.

> Mr. LIGHTFOOT: Did you see the umbrella up before?

> I didn't see it before I found it on the parapet.

> Had she light or dark stockings on?

> I didn't notice.

> If the light had kept in instead of blowing out, would you have seen her?

> Yes, sir.

> Is there a footpath at this point?

> Yes, on the left hand side of the road going from Keswick.

> Was the girl on the side of the road on which the foot path was?

> I found her on that side.

> Was she on the footpath?

> No.

> Mr. Isaac ELLWOOD, juryman: Was the umbrella open or closed?

> Open.

> It had been knocked on one side?

> Yes.

> Did you think it was a proper light that only showed four yards?

> It is on a good night.

> But on a night like that I think you should have a light to see more than
> four yards. Is it not a fact that your lights were very poor?

> On this night they were, but it was raining hard and I could not see very
> well through the windscreen.

> By the Coroner: The lorry was about twenty feet long. It was a four tonner,
> and he had half a ton on. The lorry was about 35 h.p. Peerless.

> The Coroner: The bump you felt, was it the lorry passing over her?

> I don't think so, the bump was at the back.

> You know all the ribs were fractured?

> Yes. I think she struck against the kerbstone.

> Anthony BARLOW, Christian Street, Maryport, assistant to the last witness,
> said that the headlight was a good light. When they got about a mile out of
> Keswick the light went out. It went out about twenty yards after they got round
> the corner, about a half way along the road to Portinscale. When the lamp
> went out the driver immediately put his brakes on, and drew into his left hand
> side of the road for about ten yards. They felt a bump and on looking out of
> the lorry, witness saw an umbrella up on the footpath, and thought it was
> someone lying there. Witness got out of the lorry and then heard someone
> moaning. The driver then got out and he saw someone lying between the wheels.
> Witness was afraid to go near.

> The Coroner: Why were you afraid?

> I was a bit timid.

> The Coroner: If you had been by yourself you would not have been much use,
> my lad.

> Witness added that the driver reversed the lorry and pulled the girl half
> way out before he touched her. They carried her to the front of the lorry and
> tried to light the lamp again but couldn't.

> The Coroner: Why couldn't you light the lamp again?

> I don't know.

> The Coroner: How far could you see ahead with the headlight on?

> About six yards, but not all the road, only bits of it.

> What speed were you traveling?

> I should guess about ten miles per hour.

> Mr. T. WILSON, juryman: How far is six yards - in this room?

> Witness: Across it.

> Mr. I. ELLWOOD, juryman: How far is it from Crosthwaite Church corner to
> Howrah's footpath?

> About a quarter of a mile.

> How far had you gone round the corner when the headlight went out?

> About 60 yards.

> Sixty yards? I know it was a good bit, and I could only guess.

> But you say your light only went out only sixty yards on that quarter of a
> mile of road?

> We didn't travel far after the light went out.

> How far?

> About ten yards.

> But you said it was a quarter of a mile from the turning to the footpath and
> that the light went out about sixty yards after the turning. You must have
> traveled a long way with the headlight out?

> I know it was a good way, but I am only guessing.

> Mr. T. WILSON, juryman: But how far - how many hundreds of yards - a hundred
> yards, more than that?

> Mr. HOLMES, juryman: Are you sure the headlight was on when you went through
> Keswick?

> Yes.

> Mr. T. WILSON: When the headlight went out were you relying on the
> sidelights to drive by?

> When the headlight went out it went all dark, and we could not see to drive,
> and pulled up at once.

> By Mr. TEMPLE: They could get about 12 miles an hour out of the lorry, and
> therefore they were doing the utmost of which the lorry was capable, and with
> a headlight which only showed about four yards ahead.

> In what distance could the lorry be pulled up?

> I about three yards.

> How was it you didn't pull up in three yards?

> He didn't stop dead but slowed down.

> Did he sound his horn?

> No.

> By Mr. LIGHTFOOT: They lit the headlight at ABBOTT's, just before driving
> back for Maryport. The driver told him to put water in the generator, and he
> got the water and the driver put it in. He saw the driver light the lamp. They
> went about ten yards after the headlight went out. The driver slowed down and
> pulled to the left and stopped. It was a noisy lorry. It rattled so much
> that it could be heard a quarter of a mile away. He could not say whether the
> girl was walking on the footpath of not. The girl had black stockings on and
> wore either dark purple or blue coat.

> By Mr. TEMPLE: They expected to be home much earlier than they were, six o'
> clock at least.

> The Coroner: It would not have been dark when you left Keswick then. Did you
> stop at all on the road between Keswick and where the accident occurred?

> No.

> William Henry TYSON, Whickham's Court, Keswick, said that he was driving
> children home in a charabanc from the Pavilion on Thursday night, and when he
> got near the Royal Oak Hotel corner he noticed a lorry in front. He knew the
> lorry at Mandle's. He followed the lorry through Keswick and passed it just
> before it got to Crosthwaite Church Road corner. He noticed that the lorry had
> just two sidelights on, and he thought it funny that the driver should be
> driving with only those lights on such a wild and stormy night, and wondered how
> he could see, because witness could hardly see with his electric lights. He
> passed a few people and he thought the first one he passed was Miss.
> WHITFIELD. She was wearing what appeared to be a blue coat and had her umbrella up.
> She was walking well into the left side of the road. There was no parapet
> there. She was holding the umbrella down over her head and was walking towards
> Portinscale. She was about 200 yards from the end of the Howrah's footpath.

> The Coroner: Are you quite sure that he hadn't a headlight on?

> Witness: Quite sure because I wondered how he could see.

> Mr. TEMPLE: Would you have felt justified in driving a four ton lorry on a
> night like that with such lights?

> No.

> What speed was he going?

> About six or seven miles when I passed him.

> Mr. ELLWOOD, a juryman: Where did you pass the lorry?

> At the bottom of Vicarage Hill.

> From there to where the accident happened would be a quarter mile?

> Fully that.

> The Coroner (having examined the ordinance map): It is between 500 and 600
> yards.

> Mr. LIGHTFOOT: Did you look for long at the lorry as you passed it?

> No, I just glanced at it.

> When you were passing you could not see very well?

> I could see as I got abreast.

> And you saw what?

> Two sidelights fairly well up on the cabin side, about the bottom on the
> cabin side, about the bottom of the windscreen.

> You never looked back at the lorry?

> No.

> Do you know that the headlamps are sometimes at the bottom of the radiator
> and below the mudguard?

> Yes.

> And so you would not see it?

> Not if it had not been lit.

> But would you see it if it was lit?

> Yes.

> You would have your own powerful headlights, and this acetylene headlight
> only carried four yards, not a very bright light. Don't you think that with you
> own bright lights and just glancing at the lorry, and with this headlight
> down behind the mudguard, that you might easily miss seeing it?

> Well, I might have done.

> P. C. NUTTALL said that he was with Dr. CRAWFURD when he examined the body.
> There was a mark across the body which would be consistent with the near side
> front wheel passing over her. The road where the accident happened was 21
> feet wide. The lorry had not been moved, and the marks showed that it had
> traveled 21 feet alongside, scraping the kerbstone. There were reverse marks for 4
> ½ feet. There were no marks to show on what part of the road the lorry had
> traveled before this. There was no sign on the lorry of it having come into
> contact with any object. The headlight was burning then. It was not a very good
> light. The accident happened about forty yards from the Howrah's footpath.
> The footpath was about four feet wide, and it was not a very good one. Lots of
> water stood on it, and there was a lot of water on it this night. It was
> within the urban district.

> The Coroner: There is not much inducement for people to walk on it?

> No.

> Mr. TEMPLE: It might be that this unfortunate girl was on the footpath at
> the time?

> No part of the lorry extended over the footpath sufficiently to knock her
> down.

> By Mr. LIGHTFOOT: The marks showed that the lorry had gone gradually to the
> side and not straight in.

> The Coroner said that the cause of the accident was that the driver could
> not see where he was going. His explanation was that the light went out
> suddenly, and that he pulled quickly into his side of the road, and unfortunately
> happened to strike the woman. If the light did go out, and if he did do that,
> it was what an ordinary reasonably careful man would do. Then they had the
> contradictory evidence of Mr. TYSON, and if his evidence was correct then the
> headlight was not lit from Crosthwaite Church corner to the place of the
> accident, because he asked the driver if he stopped at all after leaving Keswick
> before the accident, and he said he didn't. So far as they were concerned the
> matter of compensation did not arise. It was a question as to negligence and
> if the negligence was criminal. If they thought that the negligence did not
> commit to criminal negligence then they would bring in a verdict of accidental
> death, and leave the degree of negligence to be decided by some other court.
> There was a direct conflict of evidence, but they must not forget the answer
> given by Mr. TYSON that he might have missed seeing the headlight.

> After a retirement of some minutes the jury returned a verdict of "
> Accidental death."

> The Coroner said that if the footpath was in the urban district of Keswick -

> The Foreman: That is our difficulty. It is a county road.

> The Coroner: You can make any comment you like.

> The Foreman: We think the footpath should be attended to.

> The Coroner: Yes. It is not much use putting the footpath there if it is not
> kept in reasonable condition, fit to walk on. Another thing is that if
> people would do as he did, and as he advised and walked on the right side of the
> road when meeting traffic, instead of the left side, accidents like this would
> not happen.

> The Foreman: We are also of the opinion that the lights of the lorry were
> not adequate.

> The Coroner: There is no doubt about it.

> Mr. LIGHTFOOT said that on behalf of the driver and the owners of the lorry
> he wished to express deep sympathy with the relatives. He was sure that the
> remarks about the lights on the lorry would have the owner's careful and
> immediate attention. He was sure that if they had known of the lighting difficulty
> they would have put it right before.

> Mr. TEMPLE on behalf of the relatives accepted the expression of sympathy
> and thanked the jury for their comments on the lights.

> __________