JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANTS.

Press, Volume LXIX, Issue 20918, 27 July 1933, Page 4

JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANTS.

CLAIM FOR £3OOO FAILS. FATAL ACCIDENT AT TIMARU. (special to the tress.) TIMARU, July 20. In the Supreme Court to-day his Honour Mr Justice Blair gave judgment for defendants in the case in which Margaret Jessie Collins proceeded against the Timaru Herald Co.* Ltd., and Arthur Demetrius Mangos, claiming damages amounting to £3OOO as a result of an accident on the evening of June 10, in consequence of which Patrick Leo Collins, husband of plaintiff, lost his life. The defendant company was the owner of the car and Mangos was the driver. Mr A. D. Mcßae appeared for the plaintiff and Mr C. S. Thomas for both defendants. Giving evidence, Arthur D. Mangos said that he first saw the lights of the taxi driven by Townsend near Oxford street. He thought the vehicle was coming out on the wrong side of Rathmore street. The lights did not affect his vision then, but when the two vehicles were about 20 feet away the lights of the taxi were swung on to his windscreen and his face and momen- i tariiy dazzled him. He took his foot off the accelerator and applied the brakes. He had a clear view before the dazzle affected him. There was then no man on the road. After he got his vision back again following his being dazzled, he saw a man right in front of his car. The man was Just a few feet ahead of him. Witness put on his brakes hard, but there was no chance of missing the man, who was facing the south at a slight angle towards witness. It was his custom to drive well up on the road towards the crown in order to avoid cyclists. "A Pathetic Case." Mr Thomas said the case was a pathetic one, and although he was opposing the ciaim he was as much in sympathy with Mrs Collins as was the*, jury. He had to remind the jury, however, that sympathy could not enter into the case. Before the claim could succeed it would have to be proved that Mangos had been negligent. He esked the jury if they could imagine anyone driving a car more carefully than Mangos had done on the night of the accident. Even if Mangos had been I negligent, however, what could be said of the conduct of Collins? Could it be said that Collins had kept a proper lookout? It had to be remembered that there was an equal duty on a pedestrian to avoid a motor-car as there was for a motorist to avoid a pedestrian. Counsel also claimed that in the circumstances Mangos did not have the least chance of avoiding the accident. Mr Mcßae said that the area concerned was a well lighted one. He maintained that the visibility must have been good. He submitted that Mangos had not kept a reasonably good lookout, and that the case for Mrs Collins had been proved. Negligence Not Proved. In his address to the jury his Honour said that since the case was commenced it had been narrowed down considerably. Was there enough evidence, he asked, to convict Mangos of negligence, causing the death of Collins? He must confess to disappointment that Mr Mcßae had suggested that the jury should find Mangos guilty of , negligence on such a tangled mass of

evidence. His Honour submitted ttt following questions to the jury;—. Cl) Was Mangos guilty of ffeibzrtt* keep a proper lookout? (2) Did such failure contribute to the accident? (3) Did the conduct of Collins contribute to the accident? ; (4) If Mangos was guilty of MW to keep a proper lookout and OoIHHM conduct contributed to the weiiiwt whose negligence was the effeeJwt cause of the accident? _ (5) Was this due to an inevMattt accident? After a retirement of seven miaWf the jury returned with a ittgnMk answer to the first question. .. "That disposes of the matter," fIW his Honour. _ Mr Thomas accordingly mowed** judgments for defendants with cortfc