The Caucasian. (Shreveport, La.) 1900-192?, 1913-09-23
UNAVOIDABLE, THE VERDICT.


w. w, Darrh Indicate Reckless
ness on the Part Of J. J. Michel
the Driver of the Automobile
How DaIrh Was Killed.
Human life is about the cheapest
thing on earth, at least it would so
appear when little is done as a de
terrent to check recklessness which
too frequently result disastrously #
not fatally. Recklessness is not Inn
tied to any means Of vehicular traf-
tic nor to the manner Of being reck-
less, but when through recklessness
an individual has been killed or in
jured the person responsible should
be held amenable in law.
It may be recalled that several
years since child was run over and
killed on Sprague street by wagon
driven by a negro. The clrcum-
stances warranted a plea Of 'un-
avoidable accident" but the negro
was convicted of manslaughter and
assigned to term Of three years III
the pen. Other instances OF negroes
being convicted and punished for
recklessness could be cited but it IS
unnecessary.
On Saturday at about 1920 o'clock
w. w. Darrh was run over at the
crossing Of Market street from the
corner of the Phoenix Hotel. He
died when being conveyed to the
North Louisiana Sanitarium.
Darrh was plasterer by trade
His widow and child are bereft OF
their main support and their best
friend. Over this killing the SYM
pathetic have been regretful, but ln
this, as in all such eases the widow
and the orphan are overwhelmed IN
their affliction.
Was the killing Of Darrh un-
avoidable?
The sworn evidence adduced at
the coroner's inquest is in substance
that Michel was driving his auto at
the rate Of ten or twelve miles an
hour. One of the witnesses testified
that Michel was speeding at the rate
Of IS or 40 miles an hour and that
after striking Darrh and running
over him, did not stop until he hac
reached the alley. AS the witness
explained, Michel at the rate OF
speed specified turned on the le't
side Of Market street, mot slowing
down and blowing no signal
AS testified by other witnesses
the auto after having struck Darrf
and running over his body was
stopped within twenty feet. Accord
ing too his voluntary admission
Michel was driving ten miles al
hour. He did not slow down, nol
did he blow his signal. He simpl.
rushed from Texas street to the lei1
Of Market street at ten-mile speed
when, if he had given heed to the
requirements of the law, he shOut
have slowed down and given tn
signal and decreased his ten-mllt
speed to four miles. Had he done
this he would not have run over ant
killed Darrh, who was clearly with,
| in his rights when he was in th'
act Of crossing.
What Michel should have done
was not only to slow down and toot
but he should have stopped and no
attempted to go through as he die
in disregard Of law. He was reck.
less. This is not said in enmity, bu
as statement of fact incontro
vertible.
He could not have been reckless i
he had speeded four miles an hou
in crossing instead Of turning at NJ
left at ten miles speed.
This is the plain issue, which
So strikingly manifest that amaze
ment is provoked over the conclu
sion of an inquiry which shoul
1 have been limited to the finding G
i the cause Of death and not t
! whether or not the killing Of Darr
was unavoidable.
An unavoidable accident'or occur
renee is one that could not be avoid
ed with ordinary care, an occurrenc
beyond conservative control, b1
this plea in this case is not admls
sible even from a constrained effol
at its justification.
) Unfortunately there have bee
other killings, through recklessnes
which have been permitted to r
main dormant, at least as may
applied to law, and unless this reel
lessness is checked, as it should
legally, there will be other victim
whose lives and limbs may be TO
feited through recklessness.
, Will this case be permitted to re
> with the findings of the coroner
verdict?
n xr-;}i nnt ho r,lnSt i0npd tn