FATAL MOTOR CAR COLLISION.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume XXIX, Issue 7817, 9 June 1909, Page 3

FATAL MOTOR CAR COLLISION.

Per Press Association. 1 TIMARU, June 9. The Supreme Court resumed at 10 o'clock yesterday morning to continue the hearing of the case, faelbie v. A .J. Manchester and J. and C. Shaw, a claim £1000 damages for the death of the plaintiff's daughter, as the result of a motor car collision. The case having concluded m so far as it depended on the hearing of evidence, Mr Raymond, for the plaintiff, put m an annuity table by which should bY assessed the monetary value of Miss Selbie's life to her parents, had she lived. His Honour said that Jus present view was that Manchester, having a perfectly clear view of the road, and seeing the traps m collision, was guilty of an error of judgment m not taking the safe course of stopping his car. To risk passing the traps under the circumstances was an act of negligence. He would not hold that Miss Selbie had been guilty of contributory, negligence m drjvjng with her father. Mr Belbie might have been somewhat under the influence of liquor, and it was not her duty to leave him or refuse to drive with him. His Honour said that"*- there must be numerous cases m which damages had been recovered by parents for loss sustained through the death by accident, of a son or daughter, from whom they had 'been receiving pecuniary benefit. Mr MacGrego.r (for the defence) asked that his Honour should not use the Carlyle annuity tables put m by Mr Raymond .for the purpose of assessing the monotary value of the deceased to her parents had she lived, because these tables were compiled m England, 'and the conditions were not as favourable there as here. _ His Honour said that he proposed to use either the tables composed by the New Zealand Government, or those compiled by the A.M.P. Society. This cios&d the case, his Honour rer marking that he had stated his opinion on the facts; namely, that Manchester had been guilty of some negligence m not stopping his car. The question as to whether Shaw had been m any way to blame would be fully considered by him , and he would give his decision after gsjng into the law points involved, .