From the Rolls-Royce experimental archive: a quarter of a million communications from Rolls-Royce, 1906 to 1960's. Documents from the Sir Henry Royce Memorial Foundation (SHRMF).
The legal proceedings and opinions following an accident with a Phantom III at Chateauroux.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 113\1\ scan0203 | |
| Date | 22th November 1935 | |
| COPY. Rolls-Royce Ltd. London ......Sg.{Arthur F. Sidgreaves - MD} Srl/Crn.22.11.35 (dictated 21.11.35) copy to Tr.{Capt. F. W. Turner - Finance} Accident with Ph. III at Chateauroux. Further to the conversation I had with Tr.{Capt. F. W. Turner - Finance} on the telephone yesterday morning, during which he connected with you, as arranged we are considering Hs{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} as civilly responsible in the Chateauroux accident as a private owner. This attitude will be adopted if we cannot possibly avoid the question. We are doing our very best to bring this matter to as satisfactory a conclusion as possible, but I feel it my duty to inform you that this accident is not at all of the same nature as the previous fatal accident which happened at Chateauroux some two years ago. Our driver is rather seriously involved as, according to the French Civil Code he has committed two errors, viz: 1. Was not master of the car. 2. Passed the cyclist on the wrong side. Unfortunately the Chateauroux newspapers have published articles about the Rolls-Royce service station, testers, poor brakes on R.R. cars, etc. etc. Apart from this, there is the everlasting question of non-duty paid cars, which will have to be watched very closely in this case, with a view to avoiding any minute investigations going on. There have been various conflicting points of view raised by the various people who are involved, a brief summary of which is as follows:- 1. When Me. Marizis first studied the case, he was of opinion that the chance of our driver getting away with a fine was very remote, and thought that by applying for the leniency of the Court, for which he intends to apply, if granted the minimum sentence would be one month's imprisonment, without the benefit of the First Offenders Act. Me. Marizis will, of course, do all in his power to obtain the benefit of the said Act, but does not seem very optimistic. 2. Mr. Parsons, who is acting for the Insurance Company, is of a different opinion. Basing his argument on a recent similar case he handled, he feels that our driver will be sentenced, but in view of the fact that he is a Britisher will definitely benefit by the First Offenders Act. 3. Me. Marizis 'phoned to me yesterday evening, after his return from Chateauroux, and I am very pleased to report that as a result of his interview with the Judge, he is now of a much less | ||