A man died after being dragged by a bus in London. Ambulance delays and driver negligence are investigated.
Mr. Mitchell attempted to board the bus when his hand became trapped in the door. He subsequently fell under the bus’s rear wheel, sustaining severe arm injuries. A witness attempted to assist him and waited two hours for an ambulance to arrive.
Mr. Mitchell underwent multiple operations at the hospital but died in December due to organ failure. Consequently, Mr. Hopwood was fired from his job, but later appealed and was reinstated.
A witness called 999, reporting that the bus sped away after the man went under it. He believed the man’s arm was broken and called again to inquire about the ambulance, being told the service was “very busy.”
Mr. Mitchell himself later called 999, reporting that a bus had run him over and that he was bleeding badly with a broken arm. Paramedics located him at a hostel, noting a significant amount of blood.
The witness stated he saw the man moving near the bus but was uncertain if his arm was trapped. He believed calling from the hostel would expedite help, while a hostel worker described the arm as “hanging off.”
The man’s arm was “degloved,” with muscle and flesh detaching. He underwent multiple operations on his arm, and doctors also identified liver issues, pneumonia, and sepsis. Ultimately, his family decided to end life support.
Mr. Hopwood stated that the bus doors were frequently open and that it was not typically an issue. However, he could not explain why he did it in this situation. He admitted to driving 36mph in a 20mph zone, but insisted he was in control.
Mr. Hopwood admitted to going through an amber light, stating he misjudged the situation. He acknowledged the road conditions were fine and reiterated that he felt in control, suggesting other drivers engage in similar behavior.
Mr. Hopwood stopped to pick up two passengers and checked the bus afterward. Not expecting anyone else, he failed to do a final check and should have closed the doors beforehand.
Mr. Hopwood disagreed with the prosecution’s claims, emphasizing he had no prior incidents. He stated he felt sick watching the CCTV footage and felt awful about the man’s death, acknowledging he contributed to it.
Mr. Hopwood denied that his hoodie obstructed his view and disagreed that speeding constituted “bad driving,” requesting the prosecutor to define the term. He conceded that speeding increases risk.
Mr. Hopwood conceded that driving with open doors is incorrect, but disagreed that his driving fell below acceptable standards. However, the prosecutor argued it was indeed “bad driving,” emphasizing the responsibility of bus drivers.
The prosecutor suggested Mr. Hopwood had admitted to the charge, arguing that overconfidence led to the injury. The defense countered that the situation was not clear-cut and cautioned against premature conclusions.
The defense argued that the incident might have been a freak accident and that the jury should acquit if there was a grey area. They suggested that while bad habits might have been present, they did not amount to criminal behavior. The defense also raised the possibilities of crack use and drunkenness as contributing factors.
The defense reminded the jury not to assign blame to Mr. Mitchell and to consider all contributing factors. They emphasized that a not guilty verdict does not imply perfection, and that the standard of care was not necessarily below legal limits.