UNUSUAL VERDICT

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 56, Issue 20, 5 November 1935, Page 7

UNUSUAL VERDICT

CLAIM FOR £1657 HEARD.

WOMAN INJURED BY A TRUCK. (Per Press Association). AUCKLAND, November 4. A claim for £1657 damages for injuries arising from an accident that occurred in Hobson Street on November 8 last year, was heard by Mr Justice Fair and a jury in the Supreme Court. The plaintiff was Mrs Rita Louise Lockyer, and the defendant was John William Burgess, of Dominion Road, a coal and firewood merchant.

At the time of the accident plaintiff was walking across Hobson Street, and defendant was driving a motortruck down it toward the oity. It was alleged that it. was due to his negligent and unskilful driving that he knocked her down, 4 so that she received severe and permanent injuries. ySho had a leg broken, bbth ankles crushed, and her head injured, and she had to remain in hospital from the time of. the accident until March 26. She claimed that Burgess was travelling at an excessive speed and that he failed to keep a'proper lookout, or to give, warning. . The damages asked were made up of £ISOO general damages and £157 special damages. ; • The defence was that the acpident was due to plaintiff’s own negligence in failing to keep a proper look-out and to exercise a reasonable degree of care, or that she was at least guilty of contributory negligence. The verdict of the jury'was ail unusual one, and gave rise to a debatable legal position. \ “We find defendant guilty of negligence, causing the accident through not taking proper* precautions to avoid the accident,” s'aid'the foreman. “We find the plaintiff guilty of contributory negligence to a lesser degree.’ His Honor: You have not dealt with the question as to which negligence, if either, was the real and substantial cause of the accident ? The foreman said the jury had arrived at the conclusion that plaintiff was guilty to a lesser degree of not keeping a proper look-out in ciossing the street. They awarded £365 general damages and special damages as claimed, except that- loss of wages was reduced to £35. Each counsel moved for judgment on the verdict returned. His Honor intimated that lie. would accept the verdict and hear argument later, as to whether plaintiff was entitled to judgment on it.