APPEAL FAILS.

Press, Volume LXII, Issue 18676, 27 April 1926, Page 8

APPEAL FAILS.

JURY'S VERDICT UPHELD. . ASHBURTON COUNTY TO PAY DAMAGES. (special to "the pbess.") WELLINGTON, April 26. The reserved judgment of the Full Court in the rase of' Leo Robert Stoddart v. the chairman, councillors, and inhabitants of the Ashburton County delivered to-day. confirms the jury's verdict of £1250 damages to the plaintiff for the loss of his wife, caused by her gig colliding with an unlighted wire fence, erected by the county to Mteep traffic off a dangerous spot caused by floods on the sido of the inclined approach of the bridge. The case was brought under the Death by Accident Compensation Act, 1908. The Supreme Court jury found that the defendants were guilty of negligence, which was the real cause of the accident, which, they found, plaintiff's wife could not have avoided with reasonable care. The defendants sought a nonsuit on the weight of evidence, or a retrial. The proved facts. showed that the fence placed by the county reduced the width of the road by one-fourth, that it was at first lighted, and that the lights were then discontinued, that the gig of the plaintiff's wife was found entangled in the wire of the fence, and that she was discovered on the road in a dying condition.

Tlio judgment <-f the Court was that while defendants would not have been liable for accidents arising out of the state of the road through erosion, having fenced off the erosion, they were liable if they did not take precautions to make the obstruction safe for the heavy traffic over the bridge. And the Court confirmed the jury's verdict, adding that there was not sufficient evidence to justify the plea of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, who was a careful and experienced driver, and was driving a quiet horse, witli her gig lighted in the customary way. Judgment was entered for plaintiff for £1250, with costs as per scale, and in addition three extra days at £ls los per day, second counsel £7 7s per day for four days, and £l2 12s for argument of the motion for - retrial. At the hearing Messrs P. Wilding and North appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr W. J. Sim for the defendants.