Gumini v Davis [2006] PGDC 13; DC544 (18 July 2006)

DC544

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE
SITTING IN ITS CRIMINAL JURISDICTION]

DCCr 101 of 2006

BETWEEN

ROBERT GUMINI
Informant

AND

TERRY DAVIS
Defendant

GOROKA: G VETUNAWA
2006: March 20, April 17, May 05, 08, July 14, 18

Cases Cited
Nil

References
Nil

Counsel
Police Prosecutor, In Person
Defendant, In Person

JUDGEMENT

G Vetunawa: This is a criminal traffic case. The defendant is a new tribe mission missionary and was charged under Section 17 (2) Motor Traffic Act for driving without due care and attention.

2. Facts

The nature of the charge was on 23rd February 2006 at Nalepa Village, Goroka, EHP the defendant drove a Toyota Land cruiser station wagon, white in colour, registration number AFT 350 upon the public street, Nalepa road and ran over a small child namely Nire Lamayu Naruki a four (4) year old child. The accident took place on a small track leading New Tribes Mission estate to the main Okuk Highway. Just few meters away from the entrance to the highway is the small village of Nalepa where children usually play around the road everyday. The defendant uses this track to come to and from town everyday. Many times these children have the habit of running after passing vehicles just as fun. This practice is very dangerous for anybody, especially small children. It seems their parents do not control them.

3. On this day 23rd February 2006 the defendant as usual was passing the Nalepa village which the said child just ran across in front of the moving vehicle within the defendant did not see at all as the child was small and short. The child was not on the road. He was at the side of the road and for some unknown reason ran across in front of the defendants moving vehicle. The road is rough all so the defendant was not speeding. The child was not seriously injured as I saw him appear in Court.

4. Issue

The issue is whether the defendant drove his vehicle without due care and attention.

5. Law

Section 17 92) Motor Traffic Act reads:

A person who drives a motor vehicle on a public street without due care and attention is guilty of an offence.

Penalty: A find not exceeding K500.00.

6. The constituent of due care and attention is the act of keeping the mind conscious of driving in such a way as not to cause any accidents and keeping attention to that focus. The act by driving without due care and attention is the opposite. It is when the driver is not conscious of taking attentive care and gets involved in a road accident.

7. Findings

The accident took place on a small track leading from the New Tribes Mission station to the main Okuk Highway. As the road goes through the Nalepa village it is reasonable to conclude that the defendant was not driving at high speed and not without due care and attention. He was driving with due care and attention. It was the child himself who suddenly ran across the road in front of the moving vehicle.

8. It would be unjust to hold the defendant guilty for an action he did not cause to happen. It was the fault of the child who suddenly ran across the road. On this reasoning I find the defendant not guilty of the charge and case be struck out and defendant be discharged. Bail of one hundred Kina (K100.00) be refunded.

Prosecutor: Joe Pipi
Defendant: In person