TRAFFIC LAWS.

Auckland Star, Volume LXV, Issue 267, 10 November 1934, Page 12

TRAFFIC LAWS.

AVOIDING ACCIDENT. PEDESTRIANS HAVE DUTY. JUDGE'S REMINDER TO JURY. "I feel it my duty to speak very plainly to you. because unless there is some plain speaking and pointing to principles, the decision of the jury may bo an obstruction to justice," said Mr. Justice Ilerdman at the Supreme Court yesterday afternoon in addressing a jury at the close of a claim for damages arising from a street collision. A pedestrian, Kva Ledder Ethcridge (Mr. Henry), who was knocked over and injured when crossing Broadway, Newmarket, in July last, by a motor car driven by Mrs. Froido Wilson (Mr. Meredith and Mr. Wallace), of Wheturangi Road, Green Lane, alleged that the accident was due to the negligence of the motor car driver and claimed £4.">0 damages. Her husband, Karnest John Ethcridge, salesman, also claimed £50 general and £-17 special damages. His Honor said Mrs. Etheridge was crossing the road with her husband anil another woman, and had she remained still, as the other two did, instead of making a dash in front of the car for the safety zone, the accident would not have occurred. The Motorist's Duty. ' The fact that a collision occurred in the street was not alone sufficient to entitle the victim to damages, continued his Honor. If that were so, it would be unsafe for any person to drive a vehicle about the country. No person could succeed in an action for damages unless it was proved that the driver Of the motor car had been guilty of a breach of duty. The driver of a car was bound to keep a proper look-out* to have the car under control, and the brakes in order.

''Not only lias a motorist a duty to the general public, but the members of the public themselves have a duty when crossing the street," said his Honor. "I am not entitled to walk out of this court and shut my eyes and walk across the street, and then, if anyone knocks me down, bring an action for damages." His Honor concluded by stating that it was the boundeu duVy of every person seeking damages to prove by reasonable evidence that there had been a fault on the part of the motorist. Sympathy should not weigh the jury. It was not a mutter of sympathy but of right and justice, and conformity with the law. The jury brought in a verdict for the defendant, and judgment was given accordingly, with costs against the plaintiff,