WOMAN'S CLAIM FAILS.

Press, Volume LXVII, Issue 20302, 30 July 1931, Page 6

WOMAN'S CLAIM FAILS.

£IOOO DAMAGES SOUGHT. (SPECIAL TO THE" I'IIES6.) TIMAEU, July 29. A claim for £IOOO damages for the death of her husband, who was fatally injured in a collision between a horse on which he was mounted and a motorlorry on the Rocky Gully bridge on tho night of May 20th, 1030, was made by Agnes Margaret Mary Benson against John Hamilton Smillie, in the Supreme Court to-day. Tho action was heard by Mr Justice Adams and a jury of twelve. The claim was based on allegations of negligeneo on the part of the driver of tho lorry. It was alleged that the driver had driven at an excessive speed, had not had the vehicle under proper control, and had not exercised reasonable care by keeping a proper lookout, failing to stop when he saw tho horseman had entered the bridge iirst, and realising that it was unsafo to attempt to pass.

The defence denied the allegations of negligence or that the lorry had been driven recklessly or negligently so as to cause tho collision. Alternatively, the defence claimed that the accident was caused by the. horseman's negligence in entering upon the bridge at the same time as .the lorry, failing to stop or dismount, forcing the horse against its will against tho oncoming lights, and in not exercising: proper care. A further defence was. that Benl son had been guilty of contributory negligence. At tho conclusion of tho evidenco for . the . plaintiff, Mr Cuthbert moved for 'judgment for the defendant, or, alternatively, for a nonsuit on the grounds that the evidence for tho plaintiff established that the negligent conduct of the horseman caused tho accident, and secondly, there was no evidonce of negligence on the part,of the lorrydriver. Counsel .claimed that there was no testimony before the jury as to how Benson had met his death other than that of witness, Cox, who stated that tho horseman when over two chains from the lorry as it entered upon tho bridge hail hurried his mount from a trot to a gallop toward tho vehicle, the lamps of which were lit,. Tho rider had not attempted to stop or dismount, which clearly would have prevented the accident. The witness further declared that tho lorry had entered the bridge at from fifteen miles per hour, and the brakes were applied immediately, so that there must have been ample time for the horseman to-Jiavc avoided the collision. He nrgue«fhat there was no other conceivable ttftimonv to support the plaintiff's therefore, he submitted, the claim must fail. At this stage, his Honour said that he was satisfied that if lie now refused the motion sought by counsel for the defence . the unfortunate woman would be involved in the expenso of further motions with -1 no beneficial results. "I think it is my duty, having arrived at the conclusion I have done, that I should stop the case," continued the Judge, "as there is no evidence on which the jury would be justified in finding that tho driver of the lorry was guilty of negligenco, causing the.map's death." His Honour therefore entered judgment for the defendant with costs.